The Assembly met at 12.03 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business: Suspect Package

Mr Speaker: I advise Members that the sitting commenced later than usual today due to a health alert over a package that was received this morning at the rear of the Building. Safety procedures have been put into operation. The area has been sealed off, and the matter is being attended to.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development expressed a wish to make a statement to the Assembly about the non-prosecution of persons allegedly guilty of making fraudulent sheep subsidy claims?

Mr Speaker: I have not received a request from the Minister, or from any Member, to make a statement on that issue.

Ms Pauline Armitage: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to inform the House that I received a package similar to the aforementioned package at my home on Saturday morning. I called out the police and the Fire Brigade. I have also received 10 anonymous letters. Since 2 November, the police have been at my house more times than in my entire life. I ask whoever is responsible to leave me alone.

Mr Speaker: The House is concerned about harassment of any of its Members. Although the Member says that she has received a similar package, that may not be the case. It is not clear what the package received here contains. The package raised health concerns rather than security concerns.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I condemn attacks on Members. The House expresses its abhorrence of the attacks on Ms Armitage.
On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you consider the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development’s non-attendance and the absence of a statement on the non-prosecution of fraudulent sheep subsidy claimants to be a matter of contempt?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. He is not making a point of order; he already knows the answer. It is for Ministers to decide whether they wish to speak. The Member is making a point of politics. He ought not to enter into matters of that kind. Points of order are not to be used to raise points of politics, although that is frequently the case.

Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Iarraim cead an Bille seo a leanas a leagan faoi bhráid an Tionóil. Is é sin Bille do dhéanamh socrú faoi mheasúnuithe ar riachtanais cúrámóirí, faoi sheirbhísí tacaíochta do chúrámóirí agus faoi nithe gaolmhara.
I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 1/01] to make provision for the assessment of carers’ needs; to provide for services to help carers; to provide for the making of direct payments to persons in lieu of the provision of personal social services or carers’ services; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Industrial Development Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. The Deputy Chairperson of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has expressed a wish to speak to schedule 1. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the eight clauses, followed by schedule 1, schedules 2 to 4 and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 (Invest Northern Ireland)
Question proposed

Mr Sean Neeson: The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has not tabled any amendments and is therefore supporting the Bill. I thank the Minister, his officials, Committee members and staff for their contribution to the production of the report.
The Committee had some concerns about the system of appointments to the board. Many public appointments fall outside the scope of anti-discrimination legislation because they are made by, or under the authority of, Ministers. That problem is not unique to the board of Invest Northern Ireland. Anyone holding a statutory office — that includes many public appointments, such as those proposed in the Bill — is not protected by the employment provisions in the current employment legislation. That means that such people could not, for example, bring any action alleging religious, political or other unlawful discrimination in relation to appointment or non-appointment, treatment during service, termination of appointment or victimisation.
Many public appointments or statutory offices involve a considerable amount of work and carry appropriate levels of remuneration. They are usually advertised in employment listings, and appointments follow a competitive procedure. They often involve working to a set job description. Salaries are paid and are subject to tax and national insurance, and in many other ways such posts are comparable to ordinary employment. The Committee believes that it is right that people holding public service posts of that type should not be given a lesser degree of protection from discrimination.
It would be preferable — to enhance public confidence and having regard to the duties imposed by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — if Ministers and Departments were able to offer a full and public defence against any accusation of unlawful discrimination. There should be no need for Ministers to shelter behind special protection. It is to be hoped that Members will have the opportunity to debate the issue in more detail when the single equality Bill comes before the House.

Sir Reg Empey: I thank the Member and the Committee for their support for the Bill, for their significant work during the Committee Stage and for their help in getting us to the Consideration Stage today.
We are committed to establishing Invest Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and it is my intention that it should be established on 1 April 2002. I acknowledge the Committee’s concern on the issue raised by schedule 1, but the Committee, and its Chairperson, has acknowledged that it is a matter for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy Minister to consider, given that Department’s responsibility for anti-discrimination legislation and public appointments. I will draw the Member’s comments, and those of the Committee, to the attention of that Department.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

Clause 1 (Close seasons)

Mr Speaker: A number of amendments have been tabled, and I trust that Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. I trust that they also have my three revised groups of amendments. For the first group of amendments, it will be convenient to debate amendments 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 together.

Mr David Ford: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 5, at end insert —
‘(a) in paragraph (a) for "February" substitute "January" and for "eleventh day of August" substitute "twenty fifth day of December";’.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 5: In page 1, line 11, at end insert—
‘(2A) In section 7, subsection (2) shall be omitted.’ — [Mr Ford.]
No 6: In page 1, line 1, leave out all from ‘or’ to end of line 19. — [Mr Ford.]
No 7: In page 1, line 19, at end insert—
‘(3A) In section 7(4), the words from "Provided that" to the end shall be omitted.’— [Mr Ford.]
No 8: In page 1, line 19, at end insert—
‘(3B) In section 7D, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
"(4) It shall not be lawful for any person to take a hare alive by trap or net for the purpose of coursing or hunting." — [Mr Ford.]
No 10: In the proposed new schedule, in line 9, at the end insert —
‘The Game Preservation Act Section 7(2).
(Northern Ireland) 1928 (c. 25) In section 7(4), the words from "provided that" to the end.’— [Mr Ford.]
The amendments, all of which I will speak to now, relate to the conservation — or "preservation" in the language of 1928 — of the Irish hare. I am not putting a case against blood sports or putting a case for country sports. My amendments make the case for the conservation of a mammal that is severely under threat from numerous quarters.
This morning, many Members will have received an e-mail from the League Against Cruel Sports. I wish to quote one section from that:
"The Burns Inquiry, set up in England and Wales, to examine the question of hunting with dogs, said:
‘There is understandable concern that the seasons for hare coursing and hunting are too long in relation to the hare’s breeding season. In the absence of a ban on hunting, an option would be to introduce a closed season.’ "
That is what I seek to do.
Before I outline the general case and discuss the detail of each amendment, it is perhaps necessary to restate what my amendments are not concerned with. Last Friday, several Members received an e-mail — I believe that a copy was addressed to you, Mr Speaker — from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) that fundamentally misinterpreted two of the amendments tabled in my name and that of Mrs Eileen Bell. I must refer to that. It appears that BASC, in suggesting that amendment No.1 relates to the shooting of partridge and snipe, has failed to distinguish between the amendment Bill and the Act that it will amend. Amendment No.1 relates solely to section 7(1)(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, which is solely concerned with hares. It does not refer to partridge or snipe.
BASC made similar erroneous comments about amendment No. 6. I am happy to confirm that after I pointed that out, I received an apology by e-mail this morning. Sadly, the apology appears to have come to me alone, even though the initial allegations were sent to several Members.
It is appropriate that I should read to the House an e-mail from Mr Gorman of BASC:
"Thank you for clarification of your amendment to Clause 1. I am pleased that it doesn’t relate to the shooting season for partridges and snipe."
I suspect that Members who received that e-mail on Friday can now ignore it. It has been shown to be inaccurate as far as it refers to my amendments, as opposed to Mr Leslie’s.
There is no doubt that the Irish hare is under severe threat. In the biodiversity strategy for Northern Ireland, which was drawn up by the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group and supported by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment, the Irish hare is one of only three species that have been selected for a specific Northern Ireland action plan. The others are the chough and the curlew. The Irish hare is the only mammal that is seen as needing its own plan.
The species action plans were published in October. Although they included numerous recommendations, no action has been taken by the Department of the Environment. There is no doubt that field survey was delayed by foot-and-mouth disease — a convenient excuse but, nonetheless, valid in this case. The best information available is now at least five or six years out of date, as it is derived from data collected in a survey between 1994 and 1996. I understand that the Department is due to start the next survey of hare numbers in the spring of 2002.
I will quote three paragraphs from ‘Northern Ireland Species Action Plans’. Paragraph 1.2 says:
"populations are thought to have undergone a substantial decline in the last 10-20 years. … Population levels may have fallen to critical levels in some areas."
Paragraph 1.3 says:
"The Irish hare is a quarry species … It is listed in Annex V (a) of the EU Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive), which determines that such species may be exploited provided that this is compatible with their maintenance at a favourable conservation status."
What is a favourable conservation status?
Paragraph 5.1.3 refers to the intention to
"review and, if necessary, increase the level of protection given to the Irish hare in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985."
Action was expected on that from the Department of the Environment, but, unfortunately, that has not happened.
The Environment and Heritage Service’s web site lists two papers concerned with the current status of Irish hares. One paper examines the distribution of hares in five areas of County Antrim and County Down and is incidental to a survey being conducted on foxes. The other paper is the PhD thesis and associated literature compiled by Dr Karina Dingerkus, under the supervision of Dr Ian Montgomery of Queen’s University, completed in 1997 and published in the academic journal ‘Game and Wildlife’ in September 1997. The thesis examined the distribution of hares in 150 areas of 1 sq km throughout Northern Ireland — rather greater than the areas considered by the more recent paper covering the winter and spring of 1994-95 and 1995-96. Dr Dingerkus wrote to the Environment Committee in January 2001, and I have also had a conversation with her. In ‘Game and Wildlife’, the inadequacies of the Department of the Environment’s approach are highlighted:
"Again records do appear to be relatively similar to the present study" —
a study conducted some years ago —
"however, the present study engaged a higher level of effort in the field while both Arnold’s and Ni Lamhna’s early efforts were only based on incidental records."
In other words, the only in-depth study is being disowned and discarded by the Department, which is working on anecdotal evidence, and other anecdotal evidence appears to confirm the statements made by Dr Dingerkus and Dr Montgomery.
In her letter sent to the Committee in January, Dr Dingerkus said that the only thing that the Department had done since 1997 was to produce the biodiversity action plan. She said that of the 150 sq kms examined, 36% had no evidence of hares. Many farmers have spoken of a dramatic decrease in numbers, and that was confirmed by the recording of hares as locally extinct in over 11% of the areas surveyed. Dr Dingerkus also said that game bag records from a century ago showed much higher densities of hares and that estimates for Northern Ireland suggested that hare numbers could be as low as 8,250. In Dr Dingerkus’s opinion, the Irish hare could become extinct in 20 to 30 years. The possible extinction of a mammal that is, supposedly, on a protected list should be of concern to the Department. However, the matter does not seem to have attracted much attention so far. Dr Dingerkus also referred to important issues such as habitat management. Those issues can be — and are — addressed elsewhere. The final paragraph of the letter reads:
"I would like to urge you and your colleagues to do what you can to protect this wonderful species."
Everyone in the Chamber should listen to that this morning.
The Committee has asked numerous questions of the Department in the past year. Departmental staff have appeared before the Committee and written numerous responses, although it would be difficult to suggest that they replied to the questions asked or answered them properly in many cases. I will give the House a brief sample. On 2 January 2001, a question was asked regarding the returning of hares to the area from which they had been taken, which is a Department of the Environment requirement under a licence to net for coursing. It was admitted that two hares had been taken from Rathlin Island in September 2000. The Department subsequently requested that neither of them be released on Rathlin, because the two animals could not be identified individually and because releasing non-Rathlin hares might cause genetic contamination of the local stock. That is a wonderful example of how the licences are enforced. The Department makes a condition and then asks that it not be enforced, because there are further problems.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member accept that, at the time, there were concerns about diseases coming onto Rathlin Island and that, for the safety of the island, it was sensible to diverge from the rule?

Mr David Ford: I accept that there were good reasons why the hares should not have been released back to Rathlin Island when their identities were unknown. However, the story suggests that the Department cannot enforce the conditions of its own licences.
On 5 September, the Environment Committee was told that the Minister had decided that the issue of permits to net hares could not be resisted on conservation grounds, because the current legislation was inadequate. If that is the case, I presume that the Minister will accept the stiffening of the legislation by our amendments. If he argues that the legislation is inadequate, but does not accept our amendments, there will be serious questions about what the Department is up to.
On 4 October, the Committee received information from the Department on the status of the second, more recent hare survey. The precise phrase used was that the data was "collected opportunistically" when a PhD student from Queen’s University was surveying the population of foxes. The word "opportunistic" may mean "fortunate", but it also suggests that the data was not collected because of deliberate action by the Department. Nonetheless, the data seems to have been given the same importance as the detailed survey conducted some years before.
On 26 October, the Committee received further correspondence from the Department, including the following choice paragraph:
"Moreover, ecological evidence indicates that the main factors limiting the hare population are the availability and quality of habitat. This suggests that the loss of some hares would soon be compensated for by the natural expansion of the population to reoccupy the habitat vacated."
If there were a natural expansion, that would appear to be a logical statement. However, since everybody seems to accept that there is actually a decrease in the number of hares, the Department’s reference to natural expansion clouds the issue.
Most recently, on 21 November, the Department responded to concerns about the damage that might be done to hares if they were coursed and then released. The Department had raised the concern that the hares’ fecundity might be impaired — in other words, they might be unable to breed. The Department now seems to be concentrating on the effects of stress on the reproduction of the snowshoe hare in North America. The simple fact is that the Department cannot say how many hares it expects to be affected.
In the same letter, there is a reference to the Dingerkus and Montgomery study, which, it says, gave the Department cause for concern. The final paragraph of the letter says that
"In the Department’s opinion, the precautionary principle does not apply here, as we have evidence of the probable hare population and evidence that this is not threatened by legal hare coursing."
I suggest that there is no valid evidence of the numbers and no evidence of the effects of coursing or, more particularly, of the attempts to snare hares which then escape, perhaps damaged and unable to breed. Typically, the Department has failed to follow through on its concerns. It is entirely appropriate that the Assembly should give the hare much higher conservation status than the Department has been willing to do. I will explain the detail of the amendments.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that he has been on his feet for some time.

Mr David Ford: I was not aware that there were time limits.

Mr Speaker: There are not, but there may be limits to the House’s patience.

Mr David Ford: I will endeavour to ensure that I cover all the amendments in the remaining time, Mr Speaker.
Amendment No 1 is a simple matter of extending the close season, taking account of the breeding season for hares. It seeks to ensure that if the Act cannot be amended in order to provide total protection for hares, maximum protection possible, consistent with the seasons, will be applied.

Mr James Leslie: For the sake of clarity, will the Member explain what the season would be if amendment No 1 were agreed to?

Mr David Ford: The season would exist from 26 December to 31 December.

Mr Paul Berry: That is too long.

Mr David Ford: I look forward to a further amendment from my colleague at the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.
Amendment No 5 crucially removes the specific exemption that allows coursing to take place during the close season. It is illogical to have a close season and then allow coursing to take place within that period.
Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are purely consequential to amendment No 5. Amendment No 8 is a key amendment that relates to the Department’s current powers to authorise snaring or netting for coursing. The amendment removes the Department’s power to authorise such activity. Amendment No 10 is an amendment to the schedule consequential to amendments Nos 5 and 7 being agreed.
I trust that giving an explanation for the amendments has not detained the House too long. I draw the attention of the House to a superb cartoon by Ian Knox that appeared in ‘The Irish News’ in January 2001, which shows a hare being pursued by two dogs across the front lawn of Parliament Buildings. The caption reads:
"A happy new year to the rare and beautiful Irish hare, officially an endangered species but still legally trapped and hunted to the verge of extinction".
There is a man hiding in the shrubbery, and the caption continues:
"and a happy new year to that other most timid of mammals — the Environment Minister who issues the licences!".
The House should present a happy new year to the hares and the Environment Minister by passing the amendments and ensuring that the present situation does not continue.

Rev William McCrea: Before addressing the group of amendments, I will refer briefly to the work of the Environment Committee during the Committee Stage of the Bill.
The Committee ordered its report on the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill to be printed on 18 October 2001 after consideration of the Bill at its four meetings during September and three in October. The Committee received evidence from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) and the Countryside Alliance Northern Ireland. I particularly thank Ronan Gorman of BASC and Will Chambré of the Countryside Alliance Northern Ireland for their assistance to the Committee in the preparation of its report and for their significant contribution to the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 that will be considered later.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their willingness to listen to the views expressed during Committee Stage and for their efficiency in reflecting those views in the Minister’s proposed amendments. I stress to the House that — as recorded in the Committee’s report — the Committee did not propose to bring forward amendments to the clauses of the Bill, and it has not done so.
Amendments No 1, No 5, No 6, No 7, No 8 and No 10 proposed by Mr Ford principally address the lawful taking and killing, or destroying, of hares for hunting and coursing under the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928.
As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment I want to put on record the following: the Committee has, for over 12 months, been questioning and opposing the Department of the Environment’s practice of issuing licences to capture live hares for hare coursing. The Committee has serious concerns about the acknowledged decrease in the hare population throughout Northern Ireland. However, these specific amendments to the Bill before the House, with the exception of the Minister’s amendments, were not considered by the Committee, so I cannot give the Committee’s views on them.
In conclusion, the Committee received clear information to the effect that the Irish hare is an endangered species. I have made my concern clear, as other Members of the Committee have done, at the lack of up-to-date data in the Department. Every protection should be given to this endangered species, and it should be made unlawful to trap or net hares for coursing.

Mr James Leslie: I want to address Mr Ford’s amendments briefly. I share the concerns that he and Dr McCrea have about the low number of hares on the evidence of my own eyes. I see far fewer over the winter than I would have done 15 years ago.
Very few people would shoot a hare nowadays because the numbers are scarce. I know a considerable number of landowners who will not permit the shooting of hares. A considerable effort is being made within shooting to acknowledge the position of hares, and a case could be made for shortening the season, which currently runs from 12 August to 31 January. I will not propose any amendments during the next Stage on this. However, if the season were to be shortened, it should be by the December/January part, as this is closer to the pairing off and breeding season in March and April.
I do not agree with Mr Ford’s contention that trapping hares for coursing contributes significantly to their decline, as almost all go back into the wild. The practices of hare coursing here are exemplary; I regret to say that in England they do not muzzle dogs, and hares are killed during coursing. That is not the case here, although sometimes things go wrong for other reasons.
A healthy interest in coursing means a healthy interest in hares, and people engaged in the sport have more reason than anyone to ensure that the Irish hare increases in number. Likely changes in agricultural practices, such as a move away from intensive farming, would be the best possible tonic for the hare population. I am hopeful that over coming years we will be able, largely because of that, to reverse its decline. However, I oppose this group of amendments.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I enjoy watching wildlife programmes on television. It is impossible not to marvel at the amazing variety and beauty of mammals, birds, fish and insects in their natural habitats. It is also impossible not to be struck by the fact that almost every species survives by hunting, killing and eating other living creatures — nature red in tooth and claw.
Of course, humans are different: we are humane. When someone carries out a particularly vicious or nasty act, we say that they are beastly, or that they are no better than animals. We have got it wrong. Animals must hunt and kill to survive; they have no choice.
They do not carry out these acts for fun or sport, except now and again. A cat will sometimes toy with, or torment, a mouse before killing it. I have seen a school of killer whales play, with apparent enjoyment, "pass the parcel" with an unfortunate seal — good hunting. The irony is that we recoil from such sights, not because those creatures are being beastly, but because their behaviour is almost human. The victim is no longer food; it is "game".
It should be obvious by now that I find it difficult to feel enthusiasm for legislation that deals with hunting and killing, even when the title of the Bill includes the word "preservation". The Bill has little to do with the preservation of partridges, snipe or hares so that they can live happily in the wild and be eaten by foxes. It deals with those creatures as "game", and they are described as being
"vitally important components in the rural economy".
I received a letter from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which stated that
"Shooting provides a major incentive for the management of land — its conservation achievements are recognised by the Environment and Heritage Service through a joint statement of common interest with BASC".
That must be a great comfort to the partridges as they are lined up to be shot by our local sporting heroes and by visitors from other lands.
I am privileged to live in a truly beautiful rural area. At times, I have to stop my car a few hundred yards from my home to avoid running over a dozen or so newly released young pheasants, milling about forlornly in the middle of the road. As I shepherd them into a field, they cluster around me as if I were their long-lost father. If I were a sportsman, I could easily break a record by despatching 10 or 12 pheasants with a single shot, although they come so close that I might also damage my toes.
The enlightened code of good shooting practice seems to dictate that birds must not be hunted until they are sufficiently mature. It is reassuring that they are given a good sporting chance to fight back with their vicious, animal ferocity: hell hath no fury like a mature partridge.
It has been said that man is a hunter who will hunt in any circumstances. If that is the case, it is preferable that he hunt animals rather than other men, and it is preferable that his hunting exploits be controlled by legislation.
As a meat eater, and a conscience-stricken member of the Committee for the Environment, I shall not oppose the Minister’s Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill and shall give due consideration to the other amendments, but I am not a happy bunny.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My party supports the broad intention of the Bill. However, some serious issues with regard to hare coursing have not been considered. The Minister advised the Committee for the Environment that he would address the issue, and we look forward to a speedy response.
There are many competing claims and concerns, including animal cruelty and the depletion of the hare population. The hare population is decreasing, but that is largely due to their loss of habitat, which is an important matter in itself. Agriculture takes its toll also — for example, combine harvesters destroy the habitat of the young hare.
Since 1993, dogs involved in hare coursing have been muzzled, and veterinarians who are on hand during coursing have assured me that all precautions are taken to promote the safety of the hare.
The issue of the rural economy is also important. As coursing is an important part of the greyhound industry, it has an economic aspect. Those involved in the industry have taken many precautions, such as muzzling dogs, to ensure that the sport is more humane. The netting of hares is carried out under licence and is supervised by the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service.
I do not support Mr Ford’s amendments, which go beyond the intentions of the Bill and have not been subject to any public consultation. At present, many land managers who are interested in shooting carry out positive action for hare conservation. This practice might not continue if the season were to last for only six days. It should also be noted that Christmas Day is not one of the six days for hare coursing.
Bodies with interests in shooting game are the only ones who are carrying out positive action for hare conservation, such as habitat management and the control of predators that have a profound effect on young hares. The current level of hare shooting is sustainable. This amendment would mean the unjustifiable loss of opportunity, as it is widely accepted that it is changes in agricultural practices that have led directly to the decline in the hare population.
Mr Leslie has raised concerns at Committee level. However, Mr Ford has signed off the report. He produced his amendment at the last minute. I support the Bill but not the amendment. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Jim Shannon: I am concerned about the amendments that we are debating today. I do not deny that the Member has a right to have his say. However, the consultation process on party shooting took three years.
As one who has pursued hares as part of the country sport of rough shooting, I have some knowledge of the subject. I have not shot a hare on our land for at least ten years. We do not shoot hares any more, because there are not as many of them as there used to be. We used any hares that we took, and there was no waste.
These amendments affect the shooting fraternity, which is self-regulating. Its regulations have been effective. Those who have an interest in the hare will ensure that the population increases. There are approximately two or three hares on our land on the Ards Peninsula. They are completely protected, nobody chases them, and they are left alone. Their numbers have remained the same for the last few years, but we hope that they will increase.
I do not know how many hares there are in Northern Ireland, and a survey should be carried out across the Province to ascertain their numbers. As far as I am aware, the only two places in the Province where the hare population is large and increasing are Rathlin Island and the Belfast International Airport at Aldergrove. People who have flown into Aldergrove may have seen the hares on the grass by the runway, and visitors to Rathlin may have seen large numbers of hares.
Farming practices have changed; more pesticides are used, and the hedges have been removed. These things have changed the habitat, and they are contributing factors to the decrease in hare populations. That has to be taken into consideration when discussing the amendments.
There has also been a large increase in the number of foxes, which has led to a decrease in the number of hares. That is one reason why hares are under threat. If the number of hares has decreased, and information indicates that that is so, it is time for action to be taken. We are aiming for maximum protection of the Irish hare. Landowners, farmers and those involved in leisure activities in the countryside are clearly protective of the hare. Protection is already in place through self-regulation, which shows the remarkable contribution from those involved in countryside activities.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank all Members who participated in the debate for their undoubted interest and the intensity of their arguments. I also thank Mr Ford for his comments. He has certainly read up on the subject, although I refute his attempt to castigate the Department and his references to inadequacies within it. Those are entirely unjustifiable.
I thank David Ford for his clarification of amendment No 1, which, taken with other amendments in that Member’s name, would shorten the open season for the hare. The amendments would remove section 7(2) of the Game Preservation (Northern Ireland) Act 1928. It would reduce, by two months, the open season for pursuing or killing hares by hunting with dogs, or by coursing. The amendments would also replace the provisions of section 7D, subsection 4, of the 1928 Act, which would ban the organised coursing of Irish hares which have been trapped or netted in Northern Ireland throughout the remaining open season from 12 August to 31 January.
The amendment would not prevent imported live hares from being used in organised coursing during the open season. The remaining amendments are consequential to those two proposals. I am aware of the need to keep the hare population in Northern Ireland under review. I am also aware of the many concerns expressed by Members and by the Committee for the Environment. I pay tribute to the Committee for its help and co-operation in this matter.
As part of the wider biodiversity process, the Department has drawn up a species action plan for the Irish hare. The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) is drawing up an implementation plan for a range of biodiversity actions. The EHS intends to publish the plan by March 2002. The plan will cover a wide variety of measures, some of which will contribute to the conservation of habitats used by the Irish hare, such as semi- natural grasslands and upland heath. Those will in turn benefit the hare and other species that share its habitats.
The Department will also undertake a repeat survey of hares to ascertain what further steps, if any, need to be taken to protect the species. However, a survey was also carried out between 1997 and 1999 in County Antrim and County Down, which was extrapolated to all Northern Ireland, that estimated that the hare population was 16,500. That figure is similar to the median hare population estimated by the Dingerkus study, which was undertaken between 1994 and 1996.
The proportion of the hare population that is affected by hunting or organised coursing is very small and is of negligible importance to both the current size of the population here and to the normal fluctuations in populations of small mammals such as the hare. Mr Ford has already mentioned ecological evidence. Such evidence indicates that the main factors limiting the hare population are the availability, non-availability and quality of habitat. That suggests that the loss of some hares would soon be compensated by the natural expansion of the population to reoccupy the vacated habitat. The amendment would encourage the undesirable practice of bringing in live hares from outside Northern Ireland.
In the light of that, and because the conservation status of the species and the issues affecting it are still under investigation, I am not in a position to support the amendment.

Mr David Ford: I thank some of the Members who spoke, and in particular Dr McCrea, to whom I should apologise. Forming these amendments depended to some extent upon the Minister’s changing the long title of the Bill and, given their late timing, I was unable to mention them at the Committee meeting last week.
I thank Mr Arthur Doherty in particular for his support. I would ask on what basis Mr Mick Murphy’s talk about economic benefits should be considered. If we are facing the serious and potential destruction of a mammal in the next 20 or 30 years, some minor economic benefits seem rather less important.
Mr Shannon said that hares are common on Rathlin Island and at Aldergrove. When did he last see hares in any number at Aldergrove?

Mr Jim Shannon: In August.

Mr David Ford: I represent Aldergrove, and anyone who travels regularly through the airport knows that there are now far fewer hares than there were 10 or 20 years ago. It is deeply regrettable that, despite his having no evidence to show that the status of hares is acceptable at the moment, the Minister is unwilling to apply the precautionary principle. I will persist in promoting this amendment.
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 43
Ayes
Mrs E Bell, Mr Berry, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Close, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Ervine, Mr Ford, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr McCarthy, Rev Dr William McCrea, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr Morrow, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Watson, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.
Noes
Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Byrne, Mr Cobain, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Mr A Doherty, Mr Fee, Mr Foster, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Ms Hanna, Dr Hendron, Mr Hussey, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maskey, Mr McClarty, Dr McDonnell, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Mr Savage, Mr Tierney, Mr Trimble, Mr Weir, Mr J Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr James Leslie: I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 1, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
‘"(bb) any snipe during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 31st August next following;
(bbb) any partridge during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 14th September next following;"; and’
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 3: In page 1, line 7, leave out from "any" to the end of line 9 and insert—
‘any partridge during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 14th September next following;"; and’ — [Mr Leslie.]
No 4: In page 1, line 7, leave out "or snipe". — [Mr Leslie.]
I was not expecting to address a full House on the amendment, but I shall make the most of the opportunity.
The three amendments that I have tabled relate to the main substance of the Bill, which is concerned with changing the partridge season. They also refer to snipe. I wish to speak separately about partridges and snipe because the two are — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr James Leslie: The two birds are completely different. Partridges are reared; their numbers can be replaced and augmented by rearing. Without rearing, there would be no partridges in Northern Ireland and without shooting there would be no rearing of partridges. That situation is created by, and for, the shooting fraternity. Snipe, about which I shall say more later, are completely different. A snipe is a wild bird, and different considerations apply to wild birds. Some of those considerations are almost contradictory to those that apply to reared birds. I expressed reservations about those matters at Second Stage. Unfortunately, I missed the key Committee meetings, but, I expressed my reservations to the Committee and advised it of my intention to table amendments.
As regards partridges, the thrust of the first two amendments is that, instead of moving the season from its current start of 1 October to 1 September — thereby extending the season by one month — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. Members who wish to have conversations should do so in the Lobby, so that those who wish their education to be enlarged may hear what Mr Leslie has to say.

Mr James Leslie: I suggest that, instead of extending the partridge season by one month, we should compromise on two weeks, starting the season in the middle of September. The reason is that it is difficult to be sure of producing fully mature partridges by 1 September. I cite as evidence for that the fact that few shoots, even in the south of England, would start shooting partridges on 1 September even though they are entitled to do so under the Regulations. There is no question but that mature partridges can be produced quickly. It would involve a bit of interfering with the breeding cycle, but modern genetics has no difficulty with that. It would involve stuffing a lot of antibiotics into the partridges.
There is another reason why it is a bad idea. My hope is that we can re-introduce the grey partridge into Northern Ireland and introduce the red-legged, or French, partridge as a wild bird. However, birds stuffed full of antibiotics will not make it in the wild. They will just about last out the shooting season, and are unlikely to form wild breeding stock. That is another reason why we are not proceeding by the optimum means.
At Second Stage, and in subsequent discussions, I was concerned to hear that the main argument advanced was that there were important commercial considerations and that increasing the partridge season by a month would be of great commercial value. That is not a good argument for shooting. The preservation of wildlife, the enhancement of its habitat and caring for that wildlife — matters discussed earlier in the debate about hares — are the arguments that I would advance in favour of shooting. I am uncomfortable with the commercial argument. As I said, I acknowledge that, as agricultural practices change and the areas of cultivated land in Northern Ireland are likely to decline, people will seek other uses for that land. A reasonable use would be more widespread shooting, most of which would be commercial.
The people best placed to judge whether partridges are fit to shoot on 1 September would be those who rear them or the people in charge of the shoot. I entirely accept that. Unfortunately, that is where we bump into a problem with advancing the commercial argument for partridge shooting. Someone may have booked a group of people from abroad — Italy, for example, which is typically a place where they would come from — to come and shoot partridges in Northern Ireland during the first week of September. If it is discovered in early or mid-August that the partridges will not be ready, it is unlikely that people will be able to re-arrange their plans. Judgements about the state of the partridges will be made after the bookings have been made. If groups of foreign visitors come to Northern Ireland to shoot partridges during the first two weeks of September, those partridges will be shot whether they are ready or not. Therefore, despite the best intentions, there is the potential for shooting — perhaps inadvertently — to get itself a bad name. The commercial arguments are flawed.
It is safe to start the season on 1 October. However, people with long experience of rearing partridges without genetic modification have told me that they would be unsure about the strength of their birds by that date. If compromise is reached and the season begins in mid- September, shooting will take place in a proper and sporting manner.
Shooting has another value for partridges. Partridges live in family groups called covies. One of the benefits of shooting is that it breaks up those covies. Partridges then mix and breed with other covies in the wild. One reason why native grey partridges died out in Northern Ireland was that they remained in their own covies and interbred and, as a result, weakened their own stock. That was quite apart from their other problems, such as loss of habitat and predators. There are some grey partridges left in the Republic of Ireland. With the current enthusiasm for the reintroduction of the grey partridge, it may be possible to reinstate the breed. The enthusiasm of the shooting fraternity would be essential to that.
Those are the reasons why I believe that the House should extend the partridge season by, at most, a fortnight, and not by a month as is proposed in the Bill.
The snipe season starts on 1 September and ends on 31 January. That was set by a 1954 amendment to the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928, consolidating into the main legislation the current practice of shooting snipe. The House should consider whether it is appropriate to consolidate the season on those dates, rather than shorten it by a month. If the snipe season were to start on 1 October, it would be set on the same basis as the woodcock season. The woodcock is the other principal wild bird shot in Northern Ireland. Snipe numbers, having fallen to a worryingly low level a few years ago, seem to have revived recently. There is no argument that numbers are falling; they appear to be rising. However, I repeat my dissatisfaction with the commercial argument. Unfortunately, some commercial shooting of snipe is taking place. We must be cautious about that, because wild birds that are shot commercially cannot be replaced by breeding. It is likely that if the season for the commercial shooting of partridges is extended, visiting sportsmen will be tempted to have another couple of days’ sport by increasing the shooting of wild snipe. It would, therefore, be prudent to reduce the snipe season by a month and start it from 1 October.
Currently, self-regulation within shooting preserves the snipe population. However, there is always the danger that commercial interests can occasionally intervene to overcome the best instincts of self-regulation. It would be sensible to amend that rule and to remove some of that temptation. The biggest self-regulator of the shooting of snipe in September is the snipe. There are few of them to be found in Northern Ireland at that time, unlike in Scotland.
Amendment No 2 would confirm the snipe season as it is, and it would vary the proposal on the partridge season to the compromise position of having the season start in the middle of September. Amendment No 3 would also compromise on the partridge season at mid-September, but it would shorten the snipe season, starting it on the same day as the woodcock season, which is 1 October.
Amendment No 4 is a saver, in that it accepts that the partridge season should start on 1 September, but leaves out the words "or snipe". That would put snipe into the "any other game bird" category, the result being that the snipe season would start on 1 October.

Mr Jim Wilson: I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), the voice of the shooting fraternity, which has a degree of professionalism that is the envy of many other bodies representing sporting interests and other outdoor recreational pursuits. BASC has approximately 6,000 subscribing members and is recognised as an authoritative voice by statutory and voluntary agencies in Northern Ireland. The association, together with participants in the sport of shooting, contributes an estimated £15 million to the Northern Ireland economy annually.
The principal objective of the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill is to extend the annual shooting season for partridge so that it commences on 1 September. That change will bring the shooting season for partridges into line with Scotland, England and Wales.
A public consultation exercise showed that a majority was in favour of commencing the shooting season for partridge on 1 September. The Committee for the Environment considered the matter in detail and supported the extension to the shooting season. I draw Members’ attention to paragraph 10 of the explanatory and financial memorandum, which shows the wide variety of opinion that supported the Bill.
The concern that partridges are immature by 1 September is unfounded. It is close to suggesting that there is a level of irresponsibility in the management of shoots across the Province. BASC is widely accepted as the foremost authority on the management of shooting in Northern Ireland. It is the view of the organisation — I share the view — that with appropriate management partridges can be fully mature by 1 September. Many factors have a direct effect on the maturity of game birds that are reared and released. Dates of release, stocking densities, habitat type, weather conditions, diet and the prevalence of disease and its treatment, among other factors, will determine how partridges develop.
The shoot manager is the appropriate person to decide whether partridge are sufficiently mature to present a sporting opportunity. The code of good shooting practice, which is supported by all the major shooting organisations, makes specific provision for the rearing and release of game birds, including partridge. It is widely accepted that there is a high level of self-regulation in shooting sports, and there is no evidence of bad practice in game management.
The amendments are unnecessary and will defeat the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to bring shooting practices in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr Jim Shannon: I oppose the amendments put forward by Mr Leslie for several reasons. The consultation process has taken upwards of three years to complete. It involved individuals and the shooting organisations — the BASC and the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland. It also involved game conservation interests, individual farmers and shoot owners. The consultation was wide and far- reaching.
Like many others, I believe that the proposal put forward by Mr Leslie to change the date from 1 to 15 September does not add up. Indeed, his arguments are suspect. Shooting sports are already self-regulating. I said that in the last debate. The contribution of countryside sports cannot be ignored. The people involved in countryside sports have been actively involved in conservation. Conservation is high on their agenda. They are the ones who have planted the trees, created the ponds and maintained the hedgerows; they have reared and released the birds. We must underline the contribution that they have made.
I also want to consider tourism. There is potential for greater tourism, which can be realised and which will be to the benefit of many people. One example — not in my constituency but in the constituency of my Colleagues from North Antrim — is Rathlin Island. A very successful partridge shoot takes place there. The islanders have tried to bring people in specifically to take advantage of the opportunities for partridge shooting.
In Strangford, we have various shoots — Portaferry, Greyabbey and Ballywalter to name but three. There are many others involving the release of partridge for shooting on the Ards Peninsula. Again, those have shown the potential to create employment — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Jim Shannon: They give an economic boost to people who live in the area. There are benefits for the owners of bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels and restaurants — indeed, for many of the people who live in that area. Our agriculture industry and our countryside need that economic benefit, they need it quickly. The amendments put forward by Mr Leslie have not addressed those issues.
Pheasant shooting takes place on 1 October. In most cases, people do not shoot the pheasants until the end of October, primarily because the birds are not mature enough. However, there are occasions in early October when it would be suitable to go out and take advantage of mature pheasant shooting. The same thing applies to partridge shooting. Partridge mature more quickly than pheasant, mallard or any other bird. They are ready for thriving in the countryside, they are healthy enough to live in the wilds, and they are ready for pursuit at 1 September. It does not matter whether it is at 15 September, as suggested by Mr Leslie. It does not make any difference — the birds are mature on 1 September. The climate here suits them. Indeed, it ensures that those birds are — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Wells: Is that why they became extinct?

Mr Jim Shannon: Reared partridge are not extinct, but perhaps the Member did not know that. We need a system — [Interruption].

Mr Danny Kennedy: Would the Member confirm that his party is split on the early release of partridges?

Mr Speaker: Given where the Member is now seated in the House, it ill becomes him to judge whether other parties are split or not. I would, however, say that while I understand that the House may not have an intimate interest in the question of partridge, I would have thought that the issue of snipe was one to which Members could have paid at least some attention.

Mr Jim Shannon: Mr Speaker, I thank you for your comments. We must take all the important issues into consideration. The climate here suits the early release of partridge. It is down to the gamekeepers, to the shoot organisers and to the syndicates — they know whether the partridge are sufficiently mature and ready to pursue as rough shooting.
The organisations have supported the change in the legislation, which will bring us in line with England, Scotland and Wales, and also with Éire. It makes sense to have the same legislation here as across the water.
The amendments put forward by Mr Leslie are unnecessary and unworkable and do not address the issue. I had the pleasure of being in Mr Leslie’s company at a shoot at Ballydugan just over a year ago. I suspect that his amendments are similar to his shooting — way off target.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I know nothing whatsoever about this subject, other than — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: — other than the advice that has been offered from the opposite side of the House. However, I found the work of the Committee interesting. Mr Leslie said that he had concerns and reserved the right to bring them to the attention of the Assembly. I remain unconvinced that his amendment would have any appreciable benefit in relation to the concerns that he addressed. Advancing the season by a fortnight would have a negligible effect.
I am more concerned about endangered species — and I acknowledge that the Minister responded when these matters were raised. If there is the ability under statutory regulation to monitor and respond in order to provide the necessary protections, then I will be interested to hear the proposals or policy that the Minister will announce.
I have no interest in the sport of hunting — I have an instinct against it. However, I recognise that there is a legitimate constituency of people who derive pleasure from the sport. The efficacy of self-regulation will always be subject to debate between those who oppose and those who support. No evidence has been produced to support the amendments before us today. Therefore I support the view taken by the Environment Committee.

Mr Jim Wells: I am not a member of the Environment Committee — I wish I were — although I sometimes go along and listen. Some of the subjects discussed, including this one, are extremely interesting. I have not heard the full debate on this issue in the Committee, and many points have been made behind closed doors that I am not aware of. I understand that Mr Leslie raised these matters at the Committee, and they were debated. However, he was unsuccessful.

Rev William McCrea: I draw to the House’s attention and that of my hon Friend the fact that our Committee is 99% open, and not behind closed doors.

Mr Jim Wells: I accept the hon Member’s point. He is the very wise Chairperson of that Committee, and I have seen him in action. He has always tolerated my coming along to listen as the unofficial member of the Environment Committee, and I stand corrected.
I am conscious that I have not heard the various arguments. Some of Mr Leslie’s arguments have considerable merit, but — as I will clarify later on — I will not be supporting them.
I was formerly employed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in monitoring wildfowling activity in the Lough Neagh area. If what I saw of the self- regulation of the shooting fraternity is anything to go by, then it is no regulation whatsoever. There are many instances of young birds, which are barely capable of flapping along the surface of Lough Neagh, being shot on 1 September. There does not seem to be any regard in the shooting fraternity for the age of the bird or its ability to escape. Assurances given by the partridge- shooting fraternity that they will ensure through self- regulation that young birds that cannot escape are not shot are frankly — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Shannon: Has the Member informed any of the shooting organisations, or the police, about these incidents? Does anyone else know about them apart from himself?

Mr Jim Wells: The incidents that I referred to are not illegal, because 1 September is recognised in law as the start of the wildfowling season. For instance, it is not unusual for tufted duck to produce young out of the nest by 16 August. The ducklings are in no position to escape being shot, but are shot nonetheless. I am not alleging anything improper or illegal — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Shannon: Has the Member seen any of these incidents?

Mr Jim Wells: I certainly have. Undoubtedly there will be those on the opposite Benches who will leap upon this as a split — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member who was speaking from a sedentary position to communicate in the normal fashion through the Chair.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Stop sniping.

Mr Jim Wells: Stop sniping, indeed. I can say to the Members on my left that this is the only split that they will ever see in the DUP. It is an indication of how united we are. Had they been with us on Saturday they would have seen a very united party indeed.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Member telling us that he is in favour of the early release of partridges; the harmonisation of legislation with the Irish Republic, and the non-decommissioning of weapons?

Mr Jim Wells: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Some of that was so deep that I missed it completely. It obviously escaped the entire House also. I am not in favour of harmonisation with any foreign state, including the Irish Republic. However, I am favour of actions being taken to ensure that young birds cannot be shot.
I will be totally honest and frank. How anyone could find entertainment and amusement from going out on a Saturday morning to shoot a wild bird totally escapes me. That is my personal opinion. However, I understand that there are others, in the House and in the community, who have a totally different view, to which they are entitled, as long as they remain within the law. I could not shoot a wild bird for sport.
Various points were made earlier about the so-called need for this. Mr Shannon, for instance, is a tall, well-built gentleman. No one can tell me that he needs to shoot for food to maintain his welfare, or that of his three children. I suspect that they may well be able to maintain a sensible lifestyle without the need for game birds.
This is being done entirely for enjoyment. I find that very difficult to accept, but there are others who have a different opinion. There are enormous pressures, however, on the managers of shooting estates to ensure that when parties arrive either from Northern Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom, the birds are available to be shot. Those groups may be paying several thousand pounds. How can the manager tell them that they cannot shoot on a particular day because the birds are not mature enough? The economics are such that that is simply not possible. We have to establish in statute a date on which we can be fairly certain that the birds will be, by the natural way of things, ready to be shot and able to escape.
I disagree with Mr Leslie on the point about snipe. Snipe are currently under enormous pressure in Northern Ireland and throughout western Europe. The evidence from surveys in Britain has shown that the snipe population has fallen by 80% since 1970. In Northern Ireland, between 1987 and 1995, it has fallen by 22%. I took part in the survey in 1987 that established the baseline population figure.
The difficulty is that in winter, there is a large influx of Continental snipe into Northern Ireland, as well as jacksnipe. There are two species — jacksnipe, which is protected, and common snipe, which is not. Whilst the Continental population has remained fairly stable, the British — and by that I mean including Northern Ireland — population has declined quite dramatically. The difficulty is that the shooter cannot distinguish between British-bred snipe and Continental snipe. They are identical, so the Northern Ireland snipe population is shot along with the Continental immigrants. We should be restricting the shooting season for snipe to as short a period as possible because of the impact on the local snipe population. Therefore there is some merit in what Mr Leslie says. However, I was not at the Committee session to hear the counter- arguments, so I shall not be voting for the amendment.
I must nail the false view that shooters are the great supporters of conservation and that it is in their interest to maintain healthy stocks of wild birds for shooting. If only that were true. However, there has been a dramatic decline in many prey species in the past 30 years, and it has not been the shooting fraternity that has introduced conservation measures to protect them. Organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the National Trust, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) and similar organisations have acquired refuges to protect populations of endangered species.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I wish to correct the fallacy that the Member is trying to put about that the shooting fraternity plays little or no part in conservation. Were it not for the shooting fraternity, the cock pheasant — indeed, all pheasants — would probably be extinct in Northern Ireland. It is wrong for Mr Wells to suggest that the shooting fraternity is a selfish, indulgent crowd of people. It is the greatest conservationist of wildlife in Northern Ireland. I accept that other organisations, some of whom the Member has mentioned, play a significant part in conservation. I would like Mr Wells to withdraw his suggestion that the shooting fraternity has no concern for the preservation of wildlife.

Mr Jim Wells: There is a slight divergence of emphasis between myself and the DUP’s Chief Whip. I suspect that there is a grey area that needs to be examined. I accept that Mr Morrow is an expert on shooting and I am not; I derive no enjoyment from killing wild animals.
However, Mr Morrow’s point is not borne out by the facts. Mr Leslie said that the shooting fraternity had preserved the partridge and that it was its aim to preserve the partridge for shooting. If that were so, why did the partridge become extinct in Northern Ireland in 1978? Granted, it was reintroduced by shooting interests, but if they had been protecting that species in the wild for shooting, why did it disappear? Why has the Irish hare population collapsed if those individuals protect and conserve its habitat?
Wildlife in Northern Ireland is under enormous pressure as a result of the intensification of agriculture. Hedges are being uprooted, and wetlands are being drained.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Mr Speaker: Order. I need to keep some kind of control over this debate. There is obviously an element of control within the party that is properly the role of the Chief Whip. However, when it comes to debates in the House it moves to another place. If the Member wishes to speak, I am happy to call him to do so, but repeated interventions are not appropriate.

Rev William McCrea: Are you protecting — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Wells: I shall continue with my winding-up speech, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: There is the question of endangered species.

Mr Jim Wells: The factors that I have mentioned are leading to the dramatic decline of wildlife in Northern Ireland. The shooting fraternity, whether it is conserving or otherwise, has little or no impact on that situation. Nobody can do anything about it. However, I shall bow to greater knowledge on the issue. I was not at the Committee session; I did not hear the debate. Therefore it would be unfair of me to make a judgement having heard only one side of the story. I shall abstain on the motion.

Mr Sam Foster: I commend Members for showing such interest in the debate. There is a feeling of concern, not TLC — tender loving care — for the subject. Much sniping has also been going on, so much so that I feel like a lion among a den of Daniels.
Amendment No 2, which was tabled by Mr Leslie, proposes that the close season for snipe end on 31 August, as detailed in clause 1 of the Bill, and that the close season for partridge end on 14 September and not 31 August, as detailed in the same clause.
Amendment No 3, tabled by Mr Leslie, reiterates the proposal contained in the second part of amendment No 2 pertaining to the close season for partridge, as contained in clause 1 of the Bill. Amendment No 4, tabled by Mr Leslie, proposes that snipe should be deleted from the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill.
The proposals contained in amendments No 2 and No 3 pertaining to partridges would reduce the new September season to two weeks, considerably eroding the prime purpose of the Bill. It would also run counter to the overwhelming support received for the measure generally, and particularly from sporting interests.
The advice given to the Assembly at the Second Stage of the Bill, and consequently to the Committee for the Environment, is that normally the birds are fully mature in September and — and I must emphasise this — that no responsible manager would wish to bring the sport into disrepute by releasing birds that were not fully mature. Such action would not be considered good sporting practice. I am confident that game managers will act responsibly in this.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, Northern Ireland, supported this view in their evidence to the Committee for the Environment. The Committee indicated that in its report on the Bill and said that it was content with the proposal as contained in clause 1. The proposed extension will bring the legislation here into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the maturity of the birds has not been an issue.
With regard to amendment No 4 tabled by Mr Leslie, a statutory rule specifying the close season for snipe from 1 February to 31 August has been in force since 1 September 1954, which is, coincidentally, the same as the close season now being proposed for partridge in clause 1. As Mr Leslie has already said, the purpose of including snipe in clause 1 is to clarify the position within the context of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. Its inclusion in the Bill will mean no change in the law for shooting snipe.
There is some reference to the numbers of snipe, and contrary to what Mr Wells has said, there is no evidence to suggest that the numbers of snipe are affected by shooting. The 1999-00 survey showed that there are more snipe in Northern Ireland since 1996, when the number was exceptionally high. I know Mr Leslie and others have considerable experience, and I fully recognise their concerns. However, for the reasons I have given I have decided not to accept these three amendments.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Members who have contributed. We have had a worthwhile discussion on this.
There are two matters here. Most Members addressed the matter of partridges, which is the main issue in the Bill. Less was said on the subject of snipe, which, as I said earlier, are different, being wild birds. I can see that snipe numbers could be an issue for a long time. My observation is that numbers have increased over the past four or five years. I would not be able to dispute with Mr Wells how numbers compare with numbers in 1970 — I see that Mr Wells has left us. They are probably lower now than they were then, but they are higher now than they were five years ago. It is difficult to count snipe — almost as difficult as it is to shoot them.
Mr Jim Wilson declared his membership of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. I am a member of the Countryside Alliance, which does not have any bearing on this. I said in the Second Stage debate that I rear, shoot and eat partridges.
It is wrong to make absolute declarations on the maturity of partridges. They are capable of being mature by 1 September, and if you seek that, you can achieve it, but not always. I know people who rear partridges and gamekeepers who keep them and arrange for them to be shot. Those people do not believe that it is realistic to have them mature by 1 September — some think it is quite difficult to do even by 1 October. It depends on how natural or unnatural the methods are. It also depends on the region. The chances of getting the birds ready early are better in the southern area. People are wrong to declare that it is a matter of absolutes. If self-regulation of the industry is used, I trust that it will work properly.
It has been amusing to watch the contortions that Mr Wells went through to avoid any idea that there might be a split in his party while at the same time supporting and enhancing all my arguments. It is a relief to Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches that all Members are free to argue their point of view, declare their intentions and vote accordingly despite the fact that they may not have the same view as their party Colleagues.

Mr Speaker: I point out to the House that if amendment No 2 is made, amendments No 3 and No 4 automatically fall. Should amendment No 2 fall, the mover will decide if he wishes to move amendment No 3. If so, it will be put to the House, and so on.
Question

Mr Speaker: The Noes have it, as Mr Byrne said, "just by a hair".
Amendment No 3 proposed
"any partridge during the period commencing on 1st February in any year and ending with 14th September next following;’; and" — [Mr Leslie.]
Question
Amendment No 4 proposed
Question

Mr Speaker: I point out to the House that if amendment No 5 falls, amendments No 6 and No 7 also fall.
Amendment No 5 proposed
"(2A) In section 7, subsection (2) shall be omitted." — [Mr Ford.]
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 33.
Ayes
Mr Attwood, Mrs E Bell, Mr Berry, Mr Byrne, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Mr Dodds, Mr A Doherty, Mr Fee, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Gibson, Ms Hanna, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Poots, Mr M Robinson, Mr Shannon, Mr Tierney, Mr Watson, Mr Wells.
Noes
Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Dr Birnie, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Ms de Brún, Mr Foster, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hussey, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr Maskey, Mr McClarty, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment No 6 not moved.
Amendment No 7 not moved.
Amendment No 8 proposed
‘(3B) In section 7D, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted —
"(4) It shall not be lawful for any person to take a hare alive by trap or net for the purpose of coursing or hunting."’— [Mr Ford.]
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 33.
Ayes
Mrs E Bell, Mr Berry, Mr Byrne, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dallat, Mr Dodds, Mr A Doherty, Mr Ford, Mr Gibson, Ms Hanna, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr M Robinson, Mr Tierney, Mr Watson, Mr Wells.
Noes
Mr B Bell, Rev Robert Coulter, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Ms de Brún, Mr Fee, Mr Foster, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr J Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maskey, Mr McClarty, Mr McElduff, Mr McFarland, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Mr Savage, Mr J Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: Members may not be aware that if tellers are not provided by one side or the other, the side that does not produce tellers loses the vote without a count. I draw that to the attention of the House.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (Shooting of rabbits on agricultural land)

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move amendment No 9: In page 2, line 1, leave out clause 2 and insert
‘Protection of game and rabbits
2.— (1) For section 7A of the 1928 Act there shall be substituted—
"Protection of game and rabbits
7A—(1) Any person who kills, takes or destroys any game—
(a) on a Sunday; or
(b) during the period commencing one hour after sunset on any day and ending one hour before sunrise on the next day, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
(2) Any person who—
(a) at any time kills, takes or destroys any rabbit by means of a firearm on any land; and
(b) is not an authorised person in relation to that land, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.".
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the killing, taking or destroying of any rabbit in pursuance of any power conferred by or under—
(a) the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c.2); or
(b) the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (NI 22).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person is an authorised person in relation to any land if he is, or is authorised by—
(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b) a person who has a right of shooting on the land.".
(2) In section 9 of the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c.2) (right of occupier to kill rabbits, hares or deer damaging trees) in subsections (1) and (2) the word "rabbits,", wherever it occurs, shall be omitted.
(3) In section 10 of that Act (prevention of damage caused by rabbits, etc.) subsection (3) shall be omitted.
(4) In the Ground Game Act 1880 (c.47) (right of occupier to kill and take hares and rabbits) —
(a) in section 1, in subsection (1) —
(i) for the words "duly authorised by him in writing" there shall be substituted "authorised by him"; and
(ii) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be omitted;
(b) in section 1, subsection (3) shall be omitted; and
(c) section 10 shall be omitted.
(5) In the Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 11) —
(a) in section 29(3) (persons not required to have game licence) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—
"(c) any occupier of any land, or any person authorised by him, engaged in the killing or taking of ground game on that land;";
(b) in section 35(4) (sale by occupier of ground game killed or taken on his land) for the words from "duly authorised" to the end there shall be substituted "authorised by him to kill and take ground game";
(c) in section 37(1) (restriction on sales to licensed game dealers) the words "in accordance with the Ground Game Acts" shall be omitted;
(d) in section 41(b) (saving for rights of occupier under Ground Game Acts) for "Acts" there shall be substituted "Act 1880";
(e) in section 42 (interpretation) the definition of "the Ground Game Acts" shall be omitted.
(6) The statutory provisions set out in the Schedule are repealed to the extent specified in the second column of the Schedule.’
I propose the amendment as a result of representations made to me by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland to control pest rabbits. The amendment will regularise current practice, which has existed for some time. During its consideration of the Bill, the Committee for the Environment was made aware of the amendment, and it is content with it. I am grateful for its support.
The amendment will relax the existing controls on where and when rabbits can be shot, allowing for pest rabbits to be shot on any land at any time. However, it is subject to the requirement that the person must hold a valid gun licence and be legally authorised to shoot rabbits on the land in question.
Rabbits are defined as ground game for the purposes of the Ground Game Acts, the purpose of which is to allow farmers to control rabbits that damage their crops, without requiring a game licence. It will remain an offence to kill, take or destroy any game on a Sunday or at night or to take game or rabbits by cruel methods, as stipulated in article 12 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
The amendment necessitates several consequential amendments to related legislation. It retains the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s existing rights to allow duly authorised departmental officials, including vets, to kill, take for veterinary testing or destroy any rabbit, under the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, in the event of a risk of rabbits transmitting disease to livestock. It protects the existing rights of the Forest Service to prevent damage as a result of infestation in the vicinity of tree-planted land, after prior notice to the owner-occupier.
The provisions of amendment No 11 are consequential to amendment No 9 and necessitate the repeal of section 1(1)(a),(b), and (c), section 1(3) and section 10 of the Ground Game Act 1880. The amendment will also repeal in full the provisions of the Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906, and I have detailed the reasons for that. Amendment No 12 takes account of the fact that the previous amendments require a change in the long title of the Bill.

Rev William McCrea: I support the Minister’s proposed amendment to clause 2 and the associated amendments to the repeals schedule and long title. The amendments will bring the Bill into line with current practice and with the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. It will also allow for effective pest control on land types that are not covered by current legislation. The proposed amendment was put forward as a result of representations made to the Committee by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, with support from the Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland. Representatives from those organisations agreed the terms of the Minister’s amendments on the protection of game and rabbits, the repeals schedule and the long title. The Committee for the Environment commends the amendments to the House.

Mr Jim Wilson: I support the amendment. I compliment the Committee for the Environment on its support for the amendment — it is simply common sense. The amendments bring the regulations into line with what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom and improve a system that has been outdated for far too long.

Mr Sam Foster: I have listened with interest to both Members’ comments, which have been informative and supportive. I am grateful to the Committee for the Environment for its support and advice on the amendments, and on the Bill as a whole, at Committee Stage. I am satisfied that there are no conservation objections to the relaxation of the restriction. The change will regularise current practice.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New schedule
Amendment No 10 not moved.
Amendment No 11 made
‘SCHEDULE REPEALS
Short Title
Extent of repeal
 5
The Ground Game Act 1880 (c.47)
In Section 1(1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Section 1(3). Section 10.
The Ground Game (Amendment) Act 1906 (c.21)
The whole Act.
10
The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (c.2).
In Section (1) and (2), the word "rabbits" wherever it occurs. Section 10(3).
 
15
The Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties
Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c.22).
In section 37(1), the words "in accordance with the Ground Game Acts". In section 42, the definition of "the Ground Game Acts".’
— [The Minister of the Environment.]
New schedule agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment No 12 made
‘;and to amend the law relating to the killing, taking or destroying of rabbits and hares.’ — [The Minister of the Environment.]
Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Bill. The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee Business: Salary of Comptroller and Auditor General

Mr John Dallat: I beg to move
That the annual salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General (NI) shall be increased to £105,893 with effect from 26 November 2001.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Following devolution of power to the Assembly, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These provisions provide that the salary payable to the Comptroller and Auditor General (NI) shall be determined by, or in pursuance of, a resolution of the Assembly and that the Assembly does not have power to reduce the salary payable to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Following correspondence with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Audit Committee agreed that until an agreed procedure was put in place for determining the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland with the appropriate level of scrutiny, the Audit Committee would carry out such functions in relation to its determination that it considered necessary. Over the past months, the Committee has examined the options for putting in place a formal procedure for doing so and will put forward proposals for approval by the Assembly in due course.
Under present arrangements, the annual pay award for the Comptroller and Auditor General is calculated using a formula linked to the judiciary group 5 spot rate and the salary payable to permanent secretaries of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That reflects an agreement between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Public Accounts Commission at Westminster prior to devolution. That agreement stipulated that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland should be progressed along a scale, over a five-year period, that would align it with the judiciary group 5 by the time he reached 60. However, to prevent the C & AG’s salary from overtaking immediately that of a permanent secretary, a mechanism was incorporated into the formula to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s salary remained within 5% of that of a permanent secretary. The Audit Committee agreed that that arrangement should remain in place until proper procedures were in place, whereupon the formula could be reviewed.
At its meeting on 12 November, the Audit Committee considered the advice of the Department of Finance and Personnel for this year’s pay award, which was due to the Comptroller and Auditor General from 1 April. The Committee agreed with the Department’s recommendation that the salary should be raised to £105,893 and that the Minister of Finance and Personnel may pay arrears owing to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the annual salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General (NI) shall be increased to £105,893 with effect from 26 November 2001.
The sitting was suspended at 2.24 pm and resumed at 2.30 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

The first question, in the name of Mr Armstrong, has been withdrawn.

Equality Proofing

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what input the Public Appointments Unit has in respect of equality proofing appointments to public bodies.
(AQO 434/01)


Public appointments procedures are regulated and monitored by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. All public appointments which fall under her remit are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit.
Candidates recommended to Ministers for consideration have gone through a rigorous selection process and independent scrutiny to ensure compliance with the Commissioner’s guidelines. To ensure fairness and equity, all Departments — including my own — apply the Commissioner’s procedures to all public appointments, including those outside the Commissioner’s remit, although adherence to those principles is a matter for the appointing Minister.
The central appointments unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister publishes an annual report that gives details of all appointments. It also analyses them with regard to gender, age, disability, ethnic and community background and political activity.


Does the First Minister accept that there is a general perception that the public appointments system as practiced under direct rule had many imbalances in regard of gender, geographical representation and political representation? It is vital for the new Administration to be seen to tackle that head-on in order to ensure that the highest standard of equality proofing is vigorously applied to all public appointments. Can he assure us that that will take place? Is it the policy of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?


I understand the Member’s point and agree with a number of his criticisms of appointments made under direct rule. We too felt that, on many occasions, direct rule appointments were lacking in some respect. However, one should take account of the fact that completely new procedures with regard to public appointments have been introduced in the last few years, in particular the creation of the post of Commissioner for Public Appointments and the procedures and guidelines that she has established.
Those procedures are monitored by the central appointments unit, and I recommend that the Member obtains copies of its reports. The last report was produced in March 2001, and the Member will see the analysis that was conducted.
The situation may not be perfect from his point of view, but one should always bear in mind that when appointments are made on merit, they can only be made on merit based on those who apply. All of us want to see a greater range of applicants, because that might cure some lingering problems.


Can the First Minister comment on the anomalies evident in appointments to public bodies such as the Parades Commission?


I am happy to say that that is not a responsibility of mine, or of the devolved Administration. Appointments to the Parades Commission are made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it is a matter entirely for him. I cannot possibly comment.


Perhaps the First Minister would care to comment on some of the appointments for which he is responsible, such as the cross-border institutions to which well-known members of his party who support his arguments within the party have been appointed — for example, Mr Kerr and Mr Laird.
More recently, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has appointed well-known members of the "Yes" camp in Ulster Unionism, whereas those who are against the agreement were not appointed.


Can the Member come to his question?


Will the First Minister demonstrate to the House where he has shown equality in the appointments for which he has been responsible?


I thank the Member for making clear the distinction between appointments to the Human Rights Commission, which are a matter for the Secretary of State, and appointments to the North/South bodies for which I will accept a certain responsibility. The Member has criticised those appointments. Let me assure him that we would be delighted to appoint members of the Democratic Unionist Party, so if he, or any of his Colleagues, wish to secure appointment to these bodies, let us know. We will see what we can do to facilitate that.

Executive Meetings (Attendance by Ministers)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to state what measures are being taken to ensure regular and full attendance by all Ministers at Executive meetings.
(AQO 430/01)


Under the Belfast Agreement, and under section 18(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Minister shall not take up office until he or she has affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office.
The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have taken a pledge to fulfil the duties of their ministerial offices. Although they do not attend meetings of the Executive in person, DUP Ministers have complied with the requirements of the ministerial code in seeking the agreement of the Executive on their proposals for the Programme for Government, budgets, legislation and major policy areas that impact on other departmental programmes. They comment in writing on papers before the Executive and have permitted their senior officials to make presentations on policy areas that concern the Executive.
Despite the non-attendance of these Ministers at Executive meetings, the Executive have ensured that important strategic and policy decisions are taken to enable the two Departments to function effectively so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by their non-attendance.


Is the Deputy First Minister saying that the DUP policy is a sham and has no real effect on the running of the Executive?


It would not be for me to take issue with the Member’s description. These Ministers engage in a kind of correspondence-course relationship in that they afford their views on various issues to the Executive in writing and, of course, they bring forward departmental proposals to the Executive for consideration. The Executive have also been able to address a number of issues that affect the areas of these Departments’, consistent with their commitments in the Programme for Government. That has been particularly so in the area of infrastructure, for instance, and also in free transport for the elderly.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Deputy First Minister agree that the continued absence of Peter Robinson, the Minister for Regional Development, for example, from Executive meetings has a detrimental effect on the process of bidding for funds and priority in the Executive? An example would be the case for the improved roads infrastructure west of the Bann that is being hampered by Mr Robinson’s continued absence.


Those Ministers who do not attend the Executive and who are happy to trust the rest of us with decisions that affect their Departments, and their Department’s programmes, are obviously showing that they have a huge degree of confidence in the Executive and in the other Ministers.
The Executive, in taking decisions on financial allocations, have considered fully the needs of all Departments, including the Department for Regional Development, not least concerning the roads programme. We have been able to reflect priority and need in those areas. However, by absenting themselves from the Executive, Ministers are obviously missing out on the key strategic discussions that inform final Executive thinking on some of these issues. The Executive are not punishing or penalising any Department that is not represented at Executive meetings, but, of course, Ministers would be able to make a fuller contribution and would be able to make a more rounded presentation of their Departments’ needs if they properly attended.


Mr McElduff has got in just before me, but I will ask my question anyway. Mr McElduff mentioned the area west of the Bann; I will mention the area east of the Bann as regards funding for roads. I also want to raise the point about the Minister for Social Development and the effect on funding for housing east of the Bann.


I refer the Member to my earlier answer. The Executive have shown sensitivity in the way in which they have dealt with budgets, monitoring rounds and Executive programme funds. They recognise the needs of programmes in every Department, including those whose Ministers do not attend Executive meetings. I note the Member’s emphasis of various spending programmes. Last week he told us that there was only one priority to be considered, however that priority was not among those that he mentioned.

North Belfast

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement with regard to the initiatives being undertaken by the Executive’s liaison officer in north Belfast.
(AQO446/01)


I am sure that all Members will join me in welcoming the suspension of the protest at Holy Cross Primary School and the beginning of dialogue between the communities in Ardoyne and upper Ardoyne. In our discussions last week with representatives of those communities we made it clear that we wanted the protest to end, and on a basis that would ensure that it would not resume. Our Department’s senior liaison officer has contributed significantly to the resolution, through contact with local elected and community representatives, church leaders and representatives of statutory and voluntary agencies. There is still much work to be done.
After several recent meetings with elected and community representatives, the Deputy First Minister and I outlined a series of measures for tackling social, economic and community issues in the area. Those measures will quickly begin to address the long-standing problems of both communities. It is equally important that the process of dialogue between the two communities continue. Mutual trust and confidence must be established so that the communities can engage to resolve the issues that divide them and the problems that they share.


I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their Department’s efforts to bring the Ardoyne dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. In the event of a lasting community capacity-building exercise, will they guarantee that their Department will maintain a high level of involvement in north Belfast?


I thank the Member for his comments. I congratulate him, the other MLAs, and the MP for the area, for the constructive role that they played. The proposals that we put to the parties on Friday were contained in a letter, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The Member will see from that letter that we are working on the development of a community action project to strengthen community development capacity in the area. That project is focused on the whole North Belfast constituency. We hope to make rapid progress on the project and that it will result in permanent improvements by addressing a range of socio-economic interests in North Belfast. I am sure that reminders from the Member and his Assembly Colleagues will ensure that the issue remains a priority.


I also congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their political initiative; it led to the breakdown of the gridlock that characterised the situation at Holy Cross Primary School. I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its work to normalise the situation in Ardoyne.
What plans do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have to develop cross-community dialogue and to create a cross-community forum? Are there plans to develop community policing, which would create stability and security in that neighbourhood?


I agree with the Member’s comments, and I endorse the congratulations that he paid to the police on their handling of the issue during the last three months. The police have dealt with an extremely difficult situation, and they have shown their willingness to respond to the change in climate and to the developments of the weekend.
The police intend to adopt a community approach in the neighbourhood and have a unit dedicated to that. Precisely when and how it is deployed is an operational matter, but I believe the police intend to deploy it as soon as possible. I welcome the dialogue that took place. A forum is a natural means of enabling that to proceed, and the parties to the dialogue will control the extent to which it develops. Judging from comments made to the Deputy First Minister and me last week, there is a willingness to develop this in such a way that the problem does not recur.

Gender Inequality

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on implementing policies to tackle gender inequality.
(AQO 419/01)


In the Programme for Government we are committed to bringing forward, consulting on and implementing a cross-departmental gender equality policy. This will complement and strengthen the work already being done in line with the statutory duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Officials are having pre-consultation interviews with key community and voluntary groups to find out what affects those groups and what they would like to see included.


The Minister will agree that it is important to lead by example. Can he tell the House how many women and how many men are employed as special advisers to the First Minister and himself?


As far as I know, three special advisers work for the First Minister, who are all male, and as Deputy First Minister I have three special advisers, who are all male. Further decisions will be taken in due course when I cease to be Minister of Finance and Personnel.


Question 6, in the name of Mr McMenamin, has been withdrawn.

Commissioner for Children

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the consultation for a commissioner for children.
(AQO422/01)


The consultation period ended on 8 November, and 286 responses were received from a variety of sources, including children and young people. The responses are being analysed carefully, and a summary of the views will be available on the Department’s web site in due course. We aim to finalise proposals as quickly as possible and hope to bring a Bill before the Assembly in early January, a little later than intended, so the commissioner may be appointed by June 2002.

British-Irish Council

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the next proposed plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council.
(AQO 421/01)


The next plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council is scheduled to take place on 30 November 2001. The main focus for discussion will be a paper on future co-operation on drugs, on which the Irish Government have agreed to take the lead. In accordance with section 52, subsection 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a report of the meeting will be made to the Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards.


Does the First Minister think it ironic that the British are the lead Administration in the British- Irish Council on the environment? Will he assure the Assembly that the mixed oxide fuel plant at Sellafield will be raised at this week’s meeting?


The Member is correct. At the first ministerial meeting of the British-Irish Council on 2 October it was agreed that the environment would be one of the initial areas for discussion. Within that there is the matter of radioactive waste from Sellafield. The possible impact of climate change and waste management is also included.
Initial work on the areas is being taken forward for discussion by officials at future meetings of Environment Ministers. I would be very surprised if, at those meetings, that issue did not arise and if the point that the Member raised did not arise. It is hoped that those matters will be considered in a cool, calm atmosphere and not dealt with strictly on their environmental merits.

Review of Public Administration

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline (a) how the Executive plan to progress the review of public administration and (b) what consultation is proposed with the Assembly parties.
(AQO 424/01)


The Executive reaffirmed, in the draft Programme for Government, their commitment to improving the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of public administration and the delivery of services in Northern Ireland. They have set a target of spring 2002 for the launch of a comprehensive and strategic review of public administration. Much work and discussion has taken place already, and it is hoped that conclusions on outstanding issues will be reached in the coming weeks.
It is essential that there be a significant level of consultation, and that the Executive appreciate that the Assembly and Committees will wish to play a role in the consultation. How best that can be achieved, however, needs to be considered further.


I thank the Deputy First Minister for his reply on this important development, which must take place if we are to administer ourselves democratically. Will the Deputy First Minister elaborate on his answer by telling the House what independent advice or consultation will take place in respect of the review? The Deputy First Minister also referred to consultation with the Assembly and Committees: will there be a wider consultation on that, and what methodology will be applied in carrying out such consultation?


I welcome the Member’s acknowledgement that the Executive are undertaking work in this area. It will be a major exercise as it represents a unique opportunity to review the systems and structures of public administration here. It is important that the Executive get it right. They have agreed that it is essential that the review has a strong independent element that will draw on relevant expertise and experiences learnt in other regions and countries. However, the Executive also recognise that they cannot shirk their responsibility and that it will also be important for the Assembly to be fully engaged in the process. Therefore there is a balance to be struck in how the review is taken forward.
Given the potentially far-reaching implications of the review, it is also essential that as many people as possible engage in the process and make their views known. It is important that those who use and provide public services will have an opportunity to voice their opinions and make suggestions. Therefore the Executive recognise the need for significant consultation, and we are currently considering how best that can be achieved.


Without prejudice to the outstanding court case, will the Deputy First Minister tell the House how much the review of public administration will cost; why no money was set aside in the draft Budget for the review if it is to start early next year; and why there has not been terms of reference established for the review? Those are crucial issues. When the 11 Departments were created by the pro-agreement parties the promise was made that the review would take place, and Northern Ireland is now costing £80 million a year more to administer in April 2001 than it did in April 1998.


The Member has raised a number of points. First, as I have previously told the Member in my capacity as Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Executive have decided that the resources for the review of public administration will be met by in-year monitoring. Therefore we have already factored in that that is one of the issues that the Executive will be seeking to address through in-year monitoring. With regard to the structural issues and how the review is to be conducted, the final proposals will determine what the exact resource implications will be. Some of them are still under consideration in the Executive and will then be the subject of further consultation in the Assembly.
An exercise like this must be well thought through. Reflex initiatives will not work. We must think through all the implications, and the Executive have been discussing these. Those of us who attend the Executive have taken part in discussions; and those who do not have not taken part in discussions. The non-attenders have done nothing to move it forward.
We shall meet the commitment of having this launched in spring of next year, and we shall then test the quality of people’s contribution to and participation in the review when it is under way.

Programme for Government

10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline how the Executive will ensure the effective implementation of the Programme for Government given the refusal of two Ministers to participate fully in the Executive’s decision-making process.
(AQO 432/01)


The Pledge of Office requires Ministers to participate with Colleagues in preparing a Programme for Government and to operate within the framework of that programme when it has been agreed in the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly.
All Departments have contributed to the preparation of the programme, and the Executive wish to ensure its effective implementation. Although they did not attend meetings of the Executive in person, DUP Ministers have complied with the requirements of the ministerial code in seeking the agreement of the Executive for their proposals for the Programme for Government, budgets, legislation and major policy areas that affect other departmental programmes. They comment in writing on papers before the Executive and have permitted their senior officials to make presentations on policy matters that concern the Executive.
Despite the non-attendance of these Ministers at Executive meetings, the Executive have ensured that important strategic and policy decisions are taken to enable the two Departments to function effectively so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by their actions.


Does the First Minister accept that there is severe pressure on limited public finances for infrastructure and capital investment? Does the First Minister agree that the personal participation of the Minister for Regional Development in a collective Executive would be more effective than the present, bizarre arrangements?


I cannot disagree with the Member’s last observation on some of the curious aspects of how we proceed; nonetheless, we proceed. I cite the formulation and implementation of the Programme for Government and the original Programme for Government and its implementation as examples. I also cite our formulating a revised Programme for Government at the moment.
At this morning’s Executive meeting we approved the amendments to the draft, which will be brought before the Assembly in a week or so. We can do all these things without any difficulty, and we were assisted in so doing by the active participation of the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development; that active participation is demonstrated through the work of their officials. We have been able, despite the strange appearances from time to time, to function.
I do not believe that infrastructure has suffered. I cite major infrastructure undertakings such as the gas pipeline and the road from Newry to Larne as examples of collective decisions in which the Ministers were to some extent peripheral.
We may suffer by not having the benefit of the views, wisdom and experience, if appropriate, of those Ministers in a collective discussion in other matters. However, their non-attendance at Executive meetings demonstrates their full confidence and trust in those who are making decisions on their behalf.


While recognising that the First Minister has full confidence in the Sinn Féin Ministers to do their job, perhaps he will tell the House, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland, why he spends his time attacking the Members of my party who play a role in this Government.
Why does he refuse to attack the Minister in his Executive who has been accused of handing out pipe bombs and who is a self-confessed commander of the Provisional IRA? Why does he not spend some time attacking that Minister?


I am at a loss to understand how the Member can produce that supplementary question in view of my reply. I invite him to read Hansard tomorrow and see whether he can find an attack in my comments: I suggest that he will not. I noticed that he started his supplementary question with the word "recognising", and the Deputy First Minister and I welcome his recognition. I ask him, in a comradely spirit, to consider the speeches made at his party conference last Saturday and to ask himself which party was being attacked. What did he and his colleague spend their time doing? Did they spend their time attacking Sinn Féin, or did they spend their time attacking my Colleagues and me?

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Mr B Hutchinson is not in his place.

Execution of Robert Emmet (Bicentenary)

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he has any plans to mark the bicentenary, in 2003, of the execution of Robert Emmet.
(AQO436/01)


My Department has no plans to mark the bicentenary of the execution of Robert Emmet. The aftermath of the 1798 rebellion, including Emmet’s attempts to revive the rising, has already been dealt with in the context of the ‘Up in Arms’ exhibition, staged by the Ulster Museum in 1998.


OK. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given that the Minister is Minister for all the people — [Interruption].


Was that Irish, Mr McElduff?


I said, "OK".


It certainly was not parliamentary.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given that the Minister is Minister for all the citizens of the Six Counties, I ask him not to be partisan in the use of public money for the commemoration of historical events. I am thinking of the commemoration of the Act of Union and the preparations for the golden jubilee of the British Queen, for which £200,000 has been set aside. Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans live on the island too, and the Minister should take their concerns on board.


It is important that the celebration of one culture does not diminish another. We have celebrated the ‘Up in Arms’ exhibition, which covered the 1798 rebellion, and we have also marked the Act of Union, which, whether one approves of it or not, was a defining moment in modern Irish history, the consequences of which are still with us.
Next year is the Queen’s golden jubilee, and my Department is responsible for co-ordinating Northern Ireland’s jubilee programme as part of a Commonwealth- wide event. It will be a regional, national and international event. Next year, because of a desire expressed by Members, we will mark the annual Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January 2002.
Many celebrations and remembrances are recognised. It is unfortunate that Mr McElduff sees such events in such a narrow way. Marking, or celebrating, one culture does not diminish another. The golden jubilee celebration is a legitimate expression of the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland.


Has the Minister any plans to mark the 360th anniversary of the Irish rebellion of 1641, in which thousands of Protestant settlers lost their lives, most notably those from my town — [Interruption].


Order. The Member’s supplementary question is not in order as it refers to a different event. If I were to permit it, there would be no reason for not raising a series of other events.


I was coming to the point, Mr Speaker.


I trust that the Member was coming to the point. If he has a supplementary question about that event, I will allow it.


That was a preamble to my point. Does the Minister agree that all such commemorations are divisive and out of tune with our peace agenda?


With the greatest respect, I do not agree. If we were to agree with that, several events would be made redundant, and a body of Orangemen would possibly feel redundant if they were unable to celebrate their events. However, we cannot celebrate everything; we must prioritise. It is also important that events are not dealt with divisively. It is unfortunate, returning to the main question, that Mr McElduff chooses to see the event in divisive terms, rather than as part of a shared cultural heritage. It is something that we all share. We can all celebrate or, at least, mark it.


Does the Minister accept that if he were to mark the bicentenary of the execution of Robert Emmet, he and the Department might be expected to mark occasions relating to other more suitable people and their careers? Is he thinking of establishing any criteria so that a proper and objective view can be taken of important events, such as the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sir Edward Carson, the 130th anniversary of the birth of Lord Craigavon and the 170th anniversary of Dr Henry Cooke? Those events —


I advise the Member to stick to the first part of his question, which was, of course, entirely legitimate.


Is the Minister thinking of establishing criteria whereby his Department can consider suggestions to mark more legitimate and less politically-orientated events?


The celebration next year of the Queen’s golden jubilee is not overtly political, nor should it be divisive. As I said, the Act of Union was a defining moment in modern Irish history, and we are still living with the consequences of it. Such an event merits being marked.
We must be careful about marking the birthdays of individuals, because we must then assess whom we consider to be of particular importance. The Member, for example, mentioned Carson and others. Many of those things spring readily to mind, and their importance is self-evident. I do not see this as being an annual event or something that requires the creation of criteria. Certain things are self-evident, and the Act of Union is one of them. The golden jubilee is being celebrated throughout the kingdom, and, as the Member is aware, Northern Ireland is part of the kingdom. The occasion is being celebrated throughout the Commonwealth, so it is regional, national and international.


Does the Minister agree that some events can have great local cultural significance? 2003 is the bicentenary of the death of United Irishman Thomas Russell — "the man from God knows where" — who was executed in Downpatrick Gaol, which is now the Down County Museum. Is the Minister aware that the Hearts of Down — a group of museum curators and historians — is organising a series of events to commemorate that, and will he consider funding that group?


Order. Virtually every Member who has spoken — including the Minister — has tended to refer to other events entirely. We must bring this round to a close because, in truth, there is probably no end to the issue of the commemoration of events.

Darts

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, pursuant to AQO 399/00, to provide an update on plans by the Northern Ireland Sports Council to recognise darts as a sport.
(AQO 420/01)


In previous answers on this matter, I said that the recognition of darts would be considered at the next meeting of the Sports Council’s officers recognition panel. That was scheduled to take place in June, but, unfortunately, it was postponed. Another meeting is planned to take place in December 2001. I understand that the recognition of darts will be on the agenda. Darts has not, so far, been recognised UK-wide as a sport on the grounds that insufficient physical activity is involved.


Does the Minister agree that the issue is — to use a sporting analogy — constantly kicked into touch? I first asked the question about the recognition of darts as a sport in December 2000. I was advised that the matter would be considered in spring 2001. That did not happen. I posed the question again in May 2001, only to be told that it would be considered in June 2001. It is now almost the end of November 2001, and I am told to expect a reply sometime next month.
The previous question referred to anniversaries, centenaries and bicentenaries. I trust that I shall not be posing my question next year on its second anniversary. Many people feel discriminated against because they do not have access to suitable funding for a worthwhile sport.


Mr Close is right to say that I gave him timetables. Responsibility for activities that are considered sports in Northern Ireland lies with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. Recognition of sports lies with home countries’ sports councils, which have a recognition panel that meets once a year. It was anticipated that the panel would meet earlier in the year, but it has not met to date. I am told that it will meet in December, as I said. It is not in my power to determine when the recognition panel meets, but I anticipate that, because the rules dictate that the panel must meet once a year, it will do so before the end of the year.
If darts is recognised as a sport — this is the reason behind the question and the lobbying — it can apply for National Lottery sports funding. However, simply being recognised as a sport does not guarantee funding. It simply allows access to that fund. I refer the House to the definition of sports used by the Sports Council and throughout the home countries:
"all forms of physical activity, whether through casual or organised participation, aimed at expressing or improving physical fitness, mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels."
Darts has not, so far, been recognised as a sport on the grounds that insufficient physical effort is involved. It may be that the recognition panel has decided to change its opinion, but, as things stand, the likelihood of success should not be rated too highly.

Steering Group (Irish/Ulster-Scots)

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to indicate which members of the steering group set up by Foras na Gaeilge, Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch, the Ultach Trust and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to research the arts of Irish and Ulster-Scots have expertise in Irish and which in Ulster-Scots.
(AQO 415/01)


The arts steering group to which the Member refers was set up by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to oversee an audit and needs analysis to provide a comprehensive review of the Irish and Ulster-Scots language arts sector. In setting up the steering group, the Arts Council invited nominations from Foras na Gaeilge, the Ultach Trust, Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The nominees with expertise in Irish are Aodán McPóilin of the Ultach Trust and Deirdre Devitt of Foras na Gaeilge. No member of the steering group has Ulster-Scots expertise.


Before I ask my supplementary question, I declare an interest as the founding chairman of the Ulster-Scots Language Society.
The Ultach Trust is used to represent the interests of Ulster-Gaelic in such steering groups. Will the Minister consider using the Ulster-Scots Language Society to represent Ulster-Scots?


The steering group was an advisory panel set up by the Arts Council, not by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The single criterion was the status of the funding partner. One funding partner that the Arts Council went to was Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch, which selected and nominated a representative. However, I understand that the representative does not have expertise in Ulster-Scots.
I see no reason why the Ulster-Scots Language Society should not represent Ulster-Scots. Where, for example, decisions on the defining criteria for membership lie with my Department, I can assure the Member that each case will be examined individually. However, it is, to some extent, out of my hands in cases in which my Department does not set the objective criteria or is not responsible.

Armagh Planetarium

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he has made representations to his ministerial colleagues concerning the future of the Planetarium at Armagh.
(AQO 445/01)


The Member will be aware that my Department commissioned a review of the planetarium’s activities following its closure in November 2000 for health and safety reasons. The completed review was passed to me three weeks ago. I ensured that it was made available to the planetarium’s management committee, its staff union representative and members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee. My officials will discuss its recommendations with representatives of the management committee. We will also hear representations from the union in the next few weeks. I will raise the issue with my ministerial Colleagues when I have fully considered the review’s recommendations.


I welcome the Minister’s answer. Will he consider making plans to upgrade and extend the Armagh Planetarium and its educational facilities as a major cultural site of international repute and standing that can be used by the entire community?


The Member is aware that for health and safety reasons the planetarium is only open on a limited basis and that the star theatre remains closed. However, limited opening has proved to be a great success, as has the outreach service to schools and other groups.
The four options suggested by the review were to maintain the status quo on the basis of limited opening; demolition and rebuilding; an expanded outreach service; and closure. It will surprise no one that my preference at this stage would be for the construction of a new planetarium. However, funding issues must be taken into account before a final decision is reached.
I am mindful that the planetarium has an important educational role and that it is not just a matter of pounds and pence. Its historical site beside the observatory is another important asset in the cultural estate. I assure the Member that those issues will be considered carefully and will be discussed with the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee before a decision is reached.


The Minister touched on the matter of consultation with staff at the Armagh Planetarium during the preparation of the review. Can he reveal the level and detail of that consultation?


As I said to Mr Kennedy, I ensured that the review was made available to the staff union representative. The matter is under consideration, and I anticipate responses from several bodies, including the union. I cannot determine the way forward until those responses are received and the issues and concerns are considered.

‘Face to Face’

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he is taking to implement the findings of the document ‘Face to Face’ with regard to increasing accessibility to the arts and cultural activities.
(AQO 418/01)


The launch of the ‘Face to Face’ document in June 2001 represented a significant milestone in the provision of a framework for the arts and culture sector. Universal accessibility was a core priority, and I have asked that a steering group be set up to advise the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on the implementation of the document’s recommendations. The group will reflect the broad range of interests in the arts and culture community, and its first meeting will take place at the end of November. It will consider the implementation of ‘Face to Face’ in full, including moves to increase accessibility.


The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s audit of disabled access must be welcomed. Can the Minister assure Members that funding will be made available to arts facilities and galleries to ensure greater access for disadvantaged and disabled groups through changes in physical access and the use of sign language, Braille and new technology for the transmission of information?


It is important to recognise that in order to provide greater accessibility, we must do more than simply tackle the physical barriers; there are social and community barriers as well. We must consider the broad sweep of accessibility.
In November 2000, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure initiated the ADAPT Northern Ireland (Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today) pilot programme to carry out an audit of 40 venues. The audit was completed, and £100,000 has been allocated to allow the pilot programme to continue. In addition, I announced funding of £100,000 for the Arts Council, specifically for widening access. That money allowed for wider access for new generation audiences, early-years provision and the development of partnership with district councils. Therefore, the Department is moving forward on more than one initiative in order to achieve progress in its policy of widening access.


Does the Minister agree that the best way to improve access to the arts is to spread funding across the different venues in the North and move away from multi-million, one-off payments to venues such as the Grand Opera House?


I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I heard "Grand Opera House", but I did not hear the amount that the Member referred to. I stress that there is a spread of funding in the Province. Not all funding is earmarked for big projects; various projects are funded. The Arts Council — through directly voted funds and lottery funds — makes an important contribution, not only to the big venues such as the Grand Opera House and the new Millennium Theatre in Derry but also to smaller venues up and down the country that stage events and festivals.

Lagan Navigation

7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to provide an update on the report commissioned on the potential reopening of the Lagan navigation.
(AQO 433/01)


The feasibility study update and economic appraisal that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure commissioned in May 2001 on the possible reopening of the 12-mile lower Lagan navigation between Belfast and Sprucefield should be completed by the end of the month. The report will provide the Department with the basis for further discussion with the key partners, such as Lisburn Borough Council, Castlereagh Borough Council, Belfast City Council, the Laganside Corporation and the Environment and Heritage Service, to explore the scope for reopening the abandoned waterway.


I welcome the news that the report will come out at the end of the month. Can the Minister assure the House that he will seek funding to assist the local authorities in the reopening of the Lagan navigation? Will he support a measure to give the local authorities vesting powers in situations where it is difficult to release land?


It is important to stress that we are considering the Lagan navigation in two parts. I was referring to the lower Lagan navigation, not least because most of the land involved is owned by my Department and other public bodies. Much of the upper Lagan navigation — the Lough Neagh end — has been sold off since its abandonment in the 1950s. Therefore, it is easier and more cost-effective to begin with the section of the canal that is still in public ownership.
It would be difficult to argue the case for public funding for the entire investment. We must consider various ways of obtaining the funding and different approaches to the project. For example, there are 13 locks on the lower Lagan navigation canal alone. As a member of Lisburn Borough Council, Mr Poots will know how much it costs to refurbish one lock, let alone the whole canal. That will involve considerable investment. I will not give a figure for it because the figure that I was given originally has long since been superseded.

Arts Projects (Derry City Council Area)

8. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the amount of funding awarded to arts projects in the Derry City Council area in the past three years.
(AQO 429/01)


In the past three financial years, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland has awarded just under £4 million to arts projects in the Derry City Council area. That figure is made up of funding from the Arts Council’s grant-in-aid from Government sources and the lottery. The figure does not include all of the funding that is available for arts projects, and further funding may come from the council’s special programmes and initiatives.


I welcome the Minister’s response. How much funding will be available for the Millennium project? The Minister will be aware that the project has been running for several years.


In the past three years, 101 awards have been made in that area — a total of just under £4 million. The single largest award was £2·5 million of lottery funding to the Derry Theatre Trust, for the Millennium forum. The trust is anticipating a building budget deficit of between £100,000 and £300,000. However, I understand that it is hopeful that the Millennium Commission and a private investor will cover the deficit. There is also the possibility of an operating budget deficit in this financial year. The Derry Theatre Trust is working on a strategy to resolve that matter and may submit applications to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and Derry City Council.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the Minister satisfied that a sufficient proportion of the Budget is directed towards promoting community arts in the city?


I am not aware of the exact direction that the theatre trust is taking. I cannot answer in detail for the Millennium forum. The theatre has its own management structure, which is responsible for the direction that it takes. I am sure that the criteria for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and lottery funding were satisfied. I would be surprised if they were not meeting the criteria. If the Member has concerns about that, it would be useful if she could write to me. I will ensure that she gets an answer, and I will check that everything is done correctly.


Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest inputs to culture and arts in the Derry City Council area is provided by the Apprentice Boys of Derry Association’s celebrations? Will the Minister take the opportunity to wish the association well in its celebrations this Saturday?


The Department and I have had a direct interest in the Maiden City Festival, which is sponsored by the Apprentice Boys of Derry. Support has been secured for the festival.
It has been described by a number of people there as one of the best things ever to happen to the Maiden City. Indeed, the Maiden City Festival is going from strength to strength, which shows that there is much more than simply marching or bonfires to the Apprentice Boys. Also, next Saturday’s event has been moved forward to facilitate Christmas shopping in the city, and that shows the responsibility of the leadership of the Apprentice Boys and its ability to celebrate our culture and heritage, which is important to us all.

Cultural Tourism

9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he is taking to enable a more intensive promotion and expansion of cultural tourism; and to make a statement.
(AQO 425/01)


My Department and its sponsor bodies can contribute to delivering the Tourist Board’s commitment to developing cultural tourism, and this is reflected in the Department’s corporate strategy. With cross-departmental working, we will strive to ensure that the full potential of our cultural life is realised by attracting visitors and enhancing their experience of Northern Ireland.
Our creativity and cultural expression are unique selling points for us, and we are committed to helping to build a positive image for Northern Ireland through the work of the Northern Ireland Events Company, by developing and enhancing our cultural facilities and by supporting partnerships between the Arts Council, the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland and the Tourist Board.
Belfast’s possible designation in 2008 as European Capital of Culture provides an unprecedented development opportunity for cultural tourism. My Department will be bidding for Executive programme funds to help improve the city’s cultural infrastructure. If successful, this will contribute to making Belfast a more attractive and marketable tourist destination. The report of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure —


I am afraid the Minister is over time. I shall have to ask him to give the complete answer in writing to Mr Dallat, who, unfortunately, will not be able to ask a supplementary on this occasion.

Agriculture and Rural Development
Departmental Budget

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what proportion of her departmental budget is used for administrative costs, most notably Civil Service salaries, and what proportion is used for direct support to farmers in the form of direct grants, subsidies and incentive packages.
(AQO443/01)


Next year, expenditure on the administration of the Department and policy development work is expected to be approximately £27 million, or 6·9% of the total budget. Direct expenditure to farmers, in the form of grants, subsidies, and incentives, should amount to some £187 million, or 47·4% of the total budget. It should be borne in mind, when analysing departmental expenditure, that the budget includes provision for the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service, sea fisheries, meat hygiene enforcement on behalf of the Food Standards Agency and rural development.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)


It is clear from its annual report that the Department acts merely as an agent of the European Union, paying approximately £160 million of EU grants in rural areas while paying only £16 million of grants in its own right out of a budget of £200 million. Does the Minister accept that it is a disgrace that only 8% of her Department’s spending goes to farmers and others in rural areas?


The Member needs to remember that the bulk of my Department’s spending goes towards areas that benefit farmers, including the service to farmers through colleges, the advisory services and the veterinary services. While this is not money that goes directly into farmers’ pockets, without those services those farming communities would be at a great disadvantage. What does not go directly into farmers’ pockets goes indirectly or, indeed, directly to their benefit.


In the light of last week’s announcement, and given the resources that are allocated either to subsidies or to staffing in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will the Minister tell the House how much money will be allocated to bring about the successful prosecution of fraudsters? Will the Minister make a statement to the House on that travesty at the next opportunity?


The Member is somewhat confused. The fraud that he refers to comes to a total of £17,000. There is an annual fraud bill of £58 million in another Department that is the responsibility of a Minister with whom the Member is very familiar. I am surprised that he is not making a bigger issue of that. There is quite a difference between £17,000 and £58 million.
After a review of fraud, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development brought forward a strategy that was put before the Committee last Friday. It deals with areas where the Department must tighten up. With regard to the specific issue that the Member refers to — the south Armagh cull — the Department has always prosecuted farmers who are found to be in default or are attempting to defraud the system. Last year there were five successful prosecutions. There was also a successful prosecution in August 2001. However, the legislation on which that prosecution was based was challenged, and an appeal was launched. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who was in possession of the facts about the south Armagh cull that I had made available to the House and to the public in July 2001, had arranged dates for seven cases to be heard. The view was that the prosecutions could go ahead.
On the day of the appeal to the August case, however, the DPP decided that it should not go ahead because there was a point of law on which the legislation was weak. He subsequently decided not to go ahead with the cases in south Armagh. Therefore, until recently the Department had been able to prosecute on the basis of that law. It has moved to address the situation. The law is being changed to ensure that that does not happen again.


What proportion of modulation money, taken from direct production subsidies to farmers and paid to them under agrienvironment schemes, is retained by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — in the Forest Service, for example?


I do not have those details to hand. I will write to the Member.


Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Common Agricultural Policy

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any progress made in developing a common approach to the reform of the common agricultural policy; and to make a statement.
(AQO 437/01)


Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council I have agreed with Joe Walsh a set of common concerns and priorities for the development of the common agricultural policy (CAP), and the related issues of EU enlargement and World Trade Organisation negotiations. We have agreed to continue to review developments on those matters. I have regular discussions with my ministerial counterparts in Great Britain on a broad range of agriculture issues, including the future of the CAP. They are aware of my views.


What is the Minister’s view of the reformist position of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, which seeks to end farm subsidies?


Margaret Beckett’s position on CAP reform reflects the stance that was adopted by successive UK Agriculture Ministers and Governments. I recognise the pressures on CAP and appreciate that further reform is inevitable, but I have grave concerns about the agriculture industry’s ability to embrace radical change at present.
It is crucial that we avoid adding to the difficulties and the genuine fears that exist in rural communities. Any reform of the CAP should take place at a sustainable pace, and we must be prepared to help the industry through the significant difficulties that change will bring. There will be change as a result of the World Trade Organisation negotiations and the need to reform the CAP, but the industry and our farming community must be supported so that they can remain viable.


I listened intently to the Minister’s answer to the original question and the supplementary. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the difficulties that will result from the CAP reforms and the enlargement of the European Union. Everyone in the House is aware that agriculture has suffered 10 years of reversal and that it has since been further blighted with the foot-and- mouth disease.
Does the Minister agree that the new dimension adds urgency to the arguments in favour of an early retirement scheme and a loan scheme for farmers? Those would create a legislative framework around which the agriculture industry could be restructured to meet the new threats that will result from the accession of eastern European states to the European Union.


I accept the Member’s point about the early retirement scheme; I know that there is a demand for it in many areas. I received the vision report on the subject some time ago, and I am consulting all interested parties on that. I am examining the possibility of an early retirement scheme, but I have not yet reached a conclusion. A desk study was carried out, but a definitive conclusion was not possible because there was an absence of proper research. I have therefore initiated research to be carried out by University College Dublin and Queen’s University into the impact of early retirement schemes in other parts of the EU. The vision group favours the introduction of a new entrants scheme, but it is not in favour of an early retirement scheme.
I am aware of the need for restructuring, but I cannot come to a conclusion on the matter until I have seen the results of the research into its impact on the industry and its cost-effectiveness. An early retirement scheme might eat up the entire budget, but it would accommodate just a small number of farmers, leaving the vast majority without resources. I am open-minded, and I am examining every angle.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the drive by the World Trade Organisation and statements on world prices by Margaret Beckett and others, will farming be able to survive without agripayments? The pressure created by large-scale production in the USA, Argentina and Brazil means that we will never be able to deal on a level playing field.


It is for that reason that I set up the vision group last year. I am aware that change is imminent and that we will not be able to stop it — we cannot stop the world.
There will be changes. Pressure is being brought to bear on the common agricultural policy because of enlargement and the pressures under the World Trade Organisation for liberalisation in the market. It is not a question of what my opinion is. It is a case of having to face the reality that change is inevitable in the world situation.
It is most important for us to face those changes, to look at the challenges that change will bring and to be ready to meet those challenges. We must ensure that our industry is in a position to meet those challenges. That is why I am concerned about a headlong rush or a quick move to remove subsidies. Change will impact on the level of subsidies, but I want it to be at a pace that will allow us to ensure that our rural communities and farming industry remain viable.

Beef Labelling Regulations

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made on the implementation of the new European Union regulations on beef labelling which come into force on 1 January 2002.
(AQO 444/01)


The EU legislation on beef labelling introduced in July 2000 provided for a two-stage approach to compulsory labelling. The initial compulsory indications that related to a reference number or code, member state or third country of slaughter and member state or third country of cutting were applicable from 1 September 2000. Additional indications requiring the name of the member state or third country in which the animal or group of animals were born and that in which the animal or group of animals were raised must also be shown on the label from 1 January 2002.
Existing legislation provides the necessary powers to enforce the additional, compulsory indications applicable from 1 January 2002. Slaughterhouses, cutting plants, meat processors, retail butchers and trade organisations have already been formally advised of compulsory beef labelling indicators applicable from 1 September 2000 and 1 January 2002. My Department will write again to interested parties to remind them of the additional compulsory indicators in advance of their coming into force.


The Minister will be aware that this matter has been raised in this House before. Can she make it absolutely clear that these regulations will come into force in Northern Ireland on 1 January 2002? Can she clarify whether the beef produce will be stamped "Produce of Northern Ireland" or "Produce of the United Kingdom"?


The regulations will come into force on 1 January 2002. Beef produced in Northern Ireland will be labelled as UK beef, but there is no reason why, for marketing or other reasons, processors or those with commercial concerns cannot put a label of their own choosing on it. However, it will have to bear the UK stamp because that is the member state from which the beef comes.

Animal Health

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) the number of North/ South working groups that have been established to explore further opportunities for co-operation in the area of animal health, (b) their key areas of work and (c) when she expects to agree common animal health strategies with the Republic of Ireland.
(AQO 426/01)


To date, two working groups have been established, and another seven are in the process of being established. The key areas of work for the nine groups are brucellosis, tuberculosis, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), veterinary medicines, zoonoses, animal welfare, animal health schemes, disease surveillance, import/export and cross-border aspects of fraud. We aim to have agreed animal health strategies by 30 September 2002.


I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. It will be widely welcomed in the farming community. Does the Minister accept that there has been a widespread concern about the health of sheep, particularly in relation to how foot-and-mouth disease spread through that category of farm animals during the recent crisis? Will the Minister indicate if the problem of scrapie in sheep is being tackled, particularly on a North/South, all-Ireland basis?


Scrapie has been present for over 200 years, and it has been a notifiable disease in Northern Ireland since 1992. The control measures taken by my Department include a legal obligation on flock owners to notify the Department of suspected cases of scrapie. Those animals are slaughtered, and the farmers are compensated for their loss. The carcasses are tested by the veterinary science division and then destroyed.
Feeding ruminants meat-and-bone meal has been banned since 1989, and controls in this area were significantly strengthened in 1996. Specified risk material controls were introduced in 1990 for cattle, and in 1996 for sheep. In 1993 the Department initiated a national scrapie monitoring scheme involving a sampling target of 330 sheep per annum at abattoirs.
A programme of active surveillance in accordance with EC Regulation 999/2001 involving sample testing of sheep over 18 months old will start in January 2002. The authorities in the Republic take similar control measures. The nature of the disease and the sheep population in Ireland means that it makes sense to adopt a unified approach. Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, Joe Walsh and I have committed ourselves, in principle, to an all-Ireland approach to achieve the eradication of scrapie on an island-of-Ireland basis. We are consulting on proposals for a voluntary scheme involving genotyping, which is a method of breeding resistance to scrapie into the sheep population, as well as other more focused eradication measures. The proposals for a Northern Ireland scrapie plan are designed to take advantage of the low incidence of scrapie here, to reduce and, over time, to eliminate scrapie from the Northern Ireland flock.

Renewable Energy

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she proposes to take in regard to the promotion of renewable energy through the use of biofuels.
(AQO 442/01)


I fully support the development of renewable energy sources. However, the responsibility for biofuels falls outside the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Department for Regional Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment are responsible. Invest Northern Ireland (INI) has a role in the promotion of energy plants using biofuels. My Department promotes the use of biofuels and biolubricants where it makes business sense to do so. For example, Forest Service actively encourages the use of biodegradable oils in its vehicles and machines in support of certification of its forests under the United Kingdom woodland assurance standard. Other forestry machinery will be adjusted to use biodegradable products where practicable and where operations can realistically bear the additional costs. Similarly, forestry contractors will be encouraged to follow the example set by Forest Service.


Will the Minister undertake to investigate the potential of amoebic systems, which combine the safe disposal of agrifood waste, avoiding the dangers of botulism, with cheap eco-friendly energy production? That would enable us to meet European standards for renewable energy, which we currently fail to do.


I do not understand the question. However, when I have digested it and the Member has talked to me about it, I will consider it.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister consider a cross-departmental project, which could be funded from Executive funds, to promote the use of digesters in both farm waste and waste management? That would be a very useful project for the community.


The responsibility for that does not lie with my Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I cannot take a lead on that. However, if propositions are put to me I will look at them.

Rural Tourism

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any update on the work of the Peace II natural resource rural tourism initiative; and to make a statement.
(AQO 439/01)


The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Minister of the Environment and I have agreed four of the local partnerships that will deliver this initiative. The partnerships are Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, South Armagh Tourism Initiative, Mourne Heritage Trust and Sperrins Tourism Ltd. The partnership group for the Fermanagh area will be announced shortly. A consultation exercise was carried out in parallel with the initial invitation to prospective partnerships interested in delivering the initiative. A reply to the 36 written responses to the consultation exercise will be issued very shortly. The partnerships will have up to six months to prepare sustainable tourism strategies for their respective target areas.


I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the work being done in this area. I am sure that she is aware that there is concern about how long it is taking to get these projects off the ground. When will the successful local partnerships be in a position to call for project applications?


Successful partnerships will have up to a maximum of six months to produce a sustainable tourism development strategy for their target areas, which will bring us to May 2002. However, in view of the tight timetable for the Peace II programme, strategies will be considered as they are received. When approved, the strategies will be awarded an interim indicative financial allocation to allow work to begin. Final indicative allocations will be made when all the strategies have been assessed.

Grading (Meat Plants)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the potential benefits of having meat plants carrying out grading.
(AQO431/01)


I assume that the question follows the vision group recommendation that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should consider, in consultation with the industry, the transfer of carcass classification from the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) to the meat companies. The fact that the vision group has made this recommendation, as with all other recommendations, should not be taken to imply that I or my officials either support or oppose it. I will want to take account of comments received on this, as on other recommendations, during the consultation exercise, before making a decision.


First, it is a disgrace that the Minister has not made a statement on the statement made last week to the House.
Secondly, I do not assume that the Minister has made any decisions on whether meat plants should be grading or not. I have asked the Minister to outline the potential benefits. I can see the potential downside. The question still sits before the Minister.


I am not aware of the statement the Member is referring to. Many statements are made in the House. He has not been specific.
As regards the question that he asked, I clearly indicated that I do not want to prejudge any of the debate that is taking place or the conclusion that I will come to following consultation. The Member would be the first to criticise me if I stood up in the House and prejudged issues that are currently the subject of consultation.

Farmed Fish

9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) the number of farmed salmon which have escaped from the Northern Salmon Company Ltd in Glenarm and (b) the number of farmed fish which have escaped over the past three years.
(AQO 448/01)


The Northern Salmon Company Ltd has reported to the Department that approximately 13,000 salmon escaped when a net at Glenarm suffered structural damage during a storm in August. There is no method of independently assessing this figure. The Northern Salmon Company Ltd is currently dealing with its insurers. There have been no other escapes of farmed fish from the Northern Salmon Company Ltd or other farms in Northern Ireland over the past three years.


I am sure the Minister has noted that Glenarm salmon is on the menu here today. In view of the concerns expressed about farmed salmon escapees and the disastrous effects that they have on the Atlantic wild salmon population, does the Minister have any plans to monitor the situation at Glenarm?


Glenarm salmon frequently turns up on the menu here, and I was in a restaurant on Saturday night where it was also on the menu. I wondered how it had suddenly become so popular.
Members have raised concerns about the genetic integrity of the wild fish, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will keep a close eye on that area. However, the Department has already conducted some work in that area. It monitored the genetic composition of the salmon stock in the river, following an escape in 1990. That indicated that some change in the genetic composition of the wild population had taken place, and that was probably attributable to interbreeding between wild fish and escaped farmed fish in the lower part of the river.
There is no evidence that such a change is detrimental to the wild population, but precautionary scientific advice is to remove as many of the escaped farmed fish from the river as possible. Accordingly, no fish of farm origin would be selected as brood stock as part of any fishery enhancement activity, and the Department’s technical staff will repeat the electro-fishing operation to remove any remaining escapees before the spawning period.

Vision Group Report

10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) when the conference addressing the report of the vision group into the future of the agrifood industry will take place (b) when the consultation will end and (c) to make a statement in respect of the meetings she has held to date with interested parties.
(AQO 438/01)


The conference will take place tomorrow. The consultation period ends on 31 December 2001. As part of the consultation process, I have begun a series of meetings with stakeholders in order to obtain their preliminary views on the vision report. So far, I have met organisations that represent farmers, consumers, processors and environmental interests. A programme of meetings with other stakeholders has been arranged.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: The first question, in the name of Mr Armstrong, has been withdrawn.

Equality Proofing

Mr Conor Murphy: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what input the Public Appointments Unit has in respect of equality proofing appointments to public bodies.
(AQO 434/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Public appointments procedures are regulated and monitored by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. All public appointments which fall under her remit are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit.
Candidates recommended to Ministers for consideration have gone through a rigorous selection process and independent scrutiny to ensure compliance with the Commissioner’s guidelines. To ensure fairness and equity, all Departments — including my own — apply the Commissioner’s procedures to all public appointments, including those outside the Commissioner’s remit, although adherence to those principles is a matter for the appointing Minister.
The central appointments unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister publishes an annual report that gives details of all appointments. It also analyses them with regard to gender, age, disability, ethnic and community background and political activity.

Mr Conor Murphy: Does the First Minister accept that there is a general perception that the public appointments system as practiced under direct rule had many imbalances in regard of gender, geographical representation and political representation? It is vital for the new Administration to be seen to tackle that head-on in order to ensure that the highest standard of equality proofing is vigorously applied to all public appointments. Can he assure us that that will take place? Is it the policy of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I understand the Member’s point and agree with a number of his criticisms of appointments made under direct rule. We too felt that, on many occasions, direct rule appointments were lacking in some respect. However, one should take account of the fact that completely new procedures with regard to public appointments have been introduced in the last few years, in particular the creation of the post of Commissioner for Public Appointments and the procedures and guidelines that she has established.
Those procedures are monitored by the central appointments unit, and I recommend that the Member obtains copies of its reports. The last report was produced in March 2001, and the Member will see the analysis that was conducted.
The situation may not be perfect from his point of view, but one should always bear in mind that when appointments are made on merit, they can only be made on merit based on those who apply. All of us want to see a greater range of applicants, because that might cure some lingering problems.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Can the First Minister comment on the anomalies evident in appointments to public bodies such as the Parades Commission?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am happy to say that that is not a responsibility of mine, or of the devolved Administration. Appointments to the Parades Commission are made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it is a matter entirely for him. I cannot possibly comment.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Perhaps the First Minister would care to comment on some of the appointments for which he is responsible, such as the cross-border institutions to which well-known members of his party who support his arguments within the party have been appointed — for example, Mr Kerr and Mr Laird.
More recently, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has appointed well-known members of the "Yes" camp in Ulster Unionism, whereas those who are against the agreement were not appointed.

Mr Speaker: Can the Member come to his question?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the First Minister demonstrate to the House where he has shown equality in the appointments for which he has been responsible?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I thank the Member for making clear the distinction between appointments to the Human Rights Commission, which are a matter for the Secretary of State, and appointments to the North/South bodies for which I will accept a certain responsibility. The Member has criticised those appointments. Let me assure him that we would be delighted to appoint members of the Democratic Unionist Party, so if he, or any of his Colleagues, wish to secure appointment to these bodies, let us know. We will see what we can do to facilitate that.

Executive Meetings (Attendance by Ministers)

Mr Ivan Davis: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to state what measures are being taken to ensure regular and full attendance by all Ministers at Executive meetings.
(AQO 430/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: Under the Belfast Agreement, and under section 18(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Minister shall not take up office until he or she has affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office.
The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have taken a pledge to fulfil the duties of their ministerial offices. Although they do not attend meetings of the Executive in person, DUP Ministers have complied with the requirements of the ministerial code in seeking the agreement of the Executive on their proposals for the Programme for Government, budgets, legislation and major policy areas that impact on other departmental programmes. They comment in writing on papers before the Executive and have permitted their senior officials to make presentations on policy areas that concern the Executive.
Despite the non-attendance of these Ministers at Executive meetings, the Executive have ensured that important strategic and policy decisions are taken to enable the two Departments to function effectively so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by their non-attendance.

Mr Ivan Davis: Is the Deputy First Minister saying that the DUP policy is a sham and has no real effect on the running of the Executive?

Mr Mark Durkan: It would not be for me to take issue with the Member’s description. These Ministers engage in a kind of correspondence-course relationship in that they afford their views on various issues to the Executive in writing and, of course, they bring forward departmental proposals to the Executive for consideration. The Executive have also been able to address a number of issues that affect the areas of these Departments’, consistent with their commitments in the Programme for Government. That has been particularly so in the area of infrastructure, for instance, and also in free transport for the elderly.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Deputy First Minister agree that the continued absence of Peter Robinson, the Minister for Regional Development, for example, from Executive meetings has a detrimental effect on the process of bidding for funds and priority in the Executive? An example would be the case for the improved roads infrastructure west of the Bann that is being hampered by Mr Robinson’s continued absence.

Mr Mark Durkan: Those Ministers who do not attend the Executive and who are happy to trust the rest of us with decisions that affect their Departments, and their Department’s programmes, are obviously showing that they have a huge degree of confidence in the Executive and in the other Ministers.
The Executive, in taking decisions on financial allocations, have considered fully the needs of all Departments, including the Department for Regional Development, not least concerning the roads programme. We have been able to reflect priority and need in those areas. However, by absenting themselves from the Executive, Ministers are obviously missing out on the key strategic discussions that inform final Executive thinking on some of these issues. The Executive are not punishing or penalising any Department that is not represented at Executive meetings, but, of course, Ministers would be able to make a fuller contribution and would be able to make a more rounded presentation of their Departments’ needs if they properly attended.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Mr McElduff has got in just before me, but I will ask my question anyway. Mr McElduff mentioned the area west of the Bann; I will mention the area east of the Bann as regards funding for roads. I also want to raise the point about the Minister for Social Development and the effect on funding for housing east of the Bann.

Mr Mark Durkan: I refer the Member to my earlier answer. The Executive have shown sensitivity in the way in which they have dealt with budgets, monitoring rounds and Executive programme funds. They recognise the needs of programmes in every Department, including those whose Ministers do not attend Executive meetings. I note the Member’s emphasis of various spending programmes. Last week he told us that there was only one priority to be considered, however that priority was not among those that he mentioned.

North Belfast

Mr Fred Cobain: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement with regard to the initiatives being undertaken by the Executive’s liaison officer in north Belfast.
(AQO446/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sure that all Members will join me in welcoming the suspension of the protest at Holy Cross Primary School and the beginning of dialogue between the communities in Ardoyne and upper Ardoyne. In our discussions last week with representatives of those communities we made it clear that we wanted the protest to end, and on a basis that would ensure that it would not resume. Our Department’s senior liaison officer has contributed significantly to the resolution, through contact with local elected and community representatives, church leaders and representatives of statutory and voluntary agencies. There is still much work to be done.
After several recent meetings with elected and community representatives, the Deputy First Minister and I outlined a series of measures for tackling social, economic and community issues in the area. Those measures will quickly begin to address the long-standing problems of both communities. It is equally important that the process of dialogue between the two communities continue. Mutual trust and confidence must be established so that the communities can engage to resolve the issues that divide them and the problems that they share.

Mr Fred Cobain: I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their Department’s efforts to bring the Ardoyne dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. In the event of a lasting community capacity-building exercise, will they guarantee that their Department will maintain a high level of involvement in north Belfast?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I thank the Member for his comments. I congratulate him, the other MLAs, and the MP for the area, for the constructive role that they played. The proposals that we put to the parties on Friday were contained in a letter, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The Member will see from that letter that we are working on the development of a community action project to strengthen community development capacity in the area. That project is focused on the whole North Belfast constituency. We hope to make rapid progress on the project and that it will result in permanent improvements by addressing a range of socio-economic interests in North Belfast. I am sure that reminders from the Member and his Assembly Colleagues will ensure that the issue remains a priority.

Mr Alban Maginness: I also congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their political initiative; it led to the breakdown of the gridlock that characterised the situation at Holy Cross Primary School. I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its work to normalise the situation in Ardoyne.
What plans do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have to develop cross-community dialogue and to create a cross-community forum? Are there plans to develop community policing, which would create stability and security in that neighbourhood?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I agree with the Member’s comments, and I endorse the congratulations that he paid to the police on their handling of the issue during the last three months. The police have dealt with an extremely difficult situation, and they have shown their willingness to respond to the change in climate and to the developments of the weekend.
The police intend to adopt a community approach in the neighbourhood and have a unit dedicated to that. Precisely when and how it is deployed is an operational matter, but I believe the police intend to deploy it as soon as possible. I welcome the dialogue that took place. A forum is a natural means of enabling that to proceed, and the parties to the dialogue will control the extent to which it develops. Judging from comments made to the Deputy First Minister and me last week, there is a willingness to develop this in such a way that the problem does not recur.

Gender Inequality

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on implementing policies to tackle gender inequality.
(AQO 419/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: In the Programme for Government we are committed to bringing forward, consulting on and implementing a cross-departmental gender equality policy. This will complement and strengthen the work already being done in line with the statutory duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Officials are having pre-consultation interviews with key community and voluntary groups to find out what affects those groups and what they would like to see included.

Mr David Ford: The Minister will agree that it is important to lead by example. Can he tell the House how many women and how many men are employed as special advisers to the First Minister and himself?

Mr Mark Durkan: As far as I know, three special advisers work for the First Minister, who are all male, and as Deputy First Minister I have three special advisers, who are all male. Further decisions will be taken in due course when I cease to be Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Mr Speaker: Question 6, in the name of Mr McMenamin, has been withdrawn.

Commissioner for Children

Ms Carmel Hanna: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the consultation for a commissioner for children.
(AQO422/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The consultation period ended on 8 November, and 286 responses were received from a variety of sources, including children and young people. The responses are being analysed carefully, and a summary of the views will be available on the Department’s web site in due course. We aim to finalise proposals as quickly as possible and hope to bring a Bill before the Assembly in early January, a little later than intended, so the commissioner may be appointed by June 2002.

British-Irish Council

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the next proposed plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council.
(AQO 421/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The next plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council is scheduled to take place on 30 November 2001. The main focus for discussion will be a paper on future co-operation on drugs, on which the Irish Government have agreed to take the lead. In accordance with section 52, subsection 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a report of the meeting will be made to the Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Does the First Minister think it ironic that the British are the lead Administration in the British- Irish Council on the environment? Will he assure the Assembly that the mixed oxide fuel plant at Sellafield will be raised at this week’s meeting?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is correct. At the first ministerial meeting of the British-Irish Council on 2 October it was agreed that the environment would be one of the initial areas for discussion. Within that there is the matter of radioactive waste from Sellafield. The possible impact of climate change and waste management is also included.
Initial work on the areas is being taken forward for discussion by officials at future meetings of Environment Ministers. I would be very surprised if, at those meetings, that issue did not arise and if the point that the Member raised did not arise. It is hoped that those matters will be considered in a cool, calm atmosphere and not dealt with strictly on their environmental merits.

Review of Public Administration

Mr Eddie McGrady: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline (a) how the Executive plan to progress the review of public administration and (b) what consultation is proposed with the Assembly parties.
(AQO 424/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive reaffirmed, in the draft Programme for Government, their commitment to improving the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of public administration and the delivery of services in Northern Ireland. They have set a target of spring 2002 for the launch of a comprehensive and strategic review of public administration. Much work and discussion has taken place already, and it is hoped that conclusions on outstanding issues will be reached in the coming weeks.
It is essential that there be a significant level of consultation, and that the Executive appreciate that the Assembly and Committees will wish to play a role in the consultation. How best that can be achieved, however, needs to be considered further.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his reply on this important development, which must take place if we are to administer ourselves democratically. Will the Deputy First Minister elaborate on his answer by telling the House what independent advice or consultation will take place in respect of the review? The Deputy First Minister also referred to consultation with the Assembly and Committees: will there be a wider consultation on that, and what methodology will be applied in carrying out such consultation?

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome the Member’s acknowledgement that the Executive are undertaking work in this area. It will be a major exercise as it represents a unique opportunity to review the systems and structures of public administration here. It is important that the Executive get it right. They have agreed that it is essential that the review has a strong independent element that will draw on relevant expertise and experiences learnt in other regions and countries. However, the Executive also recognise that they cannot shirk their responsibility and that it will also be important for the Assembly to be fully engaged in the process. Therefore there is a balance to be struck in how the review is taken forward.
Given the potentially far-reaching implications of the review, it is also essential that as many people as possible engage in the process and make their views known. It is important that those who use and provide public services will have an opportunity to voice their opinions and make suggestions. Therefore the Executive recognise the need for significant consultation, and we are currently considering how best that can be achieved.

Mr Edwin Poots: Without prejudice to the outstanding court case, will the Deputy First Minister tell the House how much the review of public administration will cost; why no money was set aside in the draft Budget for the review if it is to start early next year; and why there has not been terms of reference established for the review? Those are crucial issues. When the 11 Departments were created by the pro-agreement parties the promise was made that the review would take place, and Northern Ireland is now costing £80 million a year more to administer in April 2001 than it did in April 1998.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member has raised a number of points. First, as I have previously told the Member in my capacity as Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Executive have decided that the resources for the review of public administration will be met by in-year monitoring. Therefore we have already factored in that that is one of the issues that the Executive will be seeking to address through in-year monitoring. With regard to the structural issues and how the review is to be conducted, the final proposals will determine what the exact resource implications will be. Some of them are still under consideration in the Executive and will then be the subject of further consultation in the Assembly.
An exercise like this must be well thought through. Reflex initiatives will not work. We must think through all the implications, and the Executive have been discussing these. Those of us who attend the Executive have taken part in discussions; and those who do not have not taken part in discussions. The non-attenders have done nothing to move it forward.
We shall meet the commitment of having this launched in spring of next year, and we shall then test the quality of people’s contribution to and participation in the review when it is under way.

Programme for Government

Mr Joe Byrne: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline how the Executive will ensure the effective implementation of the Programme for Government given the refusal of two Ministers to participate fully in the Executive’s decision-making process.
(AQO 432/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Pledge of Office requires Ministers to participate with Colleagues in preparing a Programme for Government and to operate within the framework of that programme when it has been agreed in the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly.
All Departments have contributed to the preparation of the programme, and the Executive wish to ensure its effective implementation. Although they did not attend meetings of the Executive in person, DUP Ministers have complied with the requirements of the ministerial code in seeking the agreement of the Executive for their proposals for the Programme for Government, budgets, legislation and major policy areas that affect other departmental programmes. They comment in writing on papers before the Executive and have permitted their senior officials to make presentations on policy matters that concern the Executive.
Despite the non-attendance of these Ministers at Executive meetings, the Executive have ensured that important strategic and policy decisions are taken to enable the two Departments to function effectively so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by their actions.

Mr Joe Byrne: Does the First Minister accept that there is severe pressure on limited public finances for infrastructure and capital investment? Does the First Minister agree that the personal participation of the Minister for Regional Development in a collective Executive would be more effective than the present, bizarre arrangements?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I cannot disagree with the Member’s last observation on some of the curious aspects of how we proceed; nonetheless, we proceed. I cite the formulation and implementation of the Programme for Government and the original Programme for Government and its implementation as examples. I also cite our formulating a revised Programme for Government at the moment.
At this morning’s Executive meeting we approved the amendments to the draft, which will be brought before the Assembly in a week or so. We can do all these things without any difficulty, and we were assisted in so doing by the active participation of the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development; that active participation is demonstrated through the work of their officials. We have been able, despite the strange appearances from time to time, to function.
I do not believe that infrastructure has suffered. I cite major infrastructure undertakings such as the gas pipeline and the road from Newry to Larne as examples of collective decisions in which the Ministers were to some extent peripheral.
We may suffer by not having the benefit of the views, wisdom and experience, if appropriate, of those Ministers in a collective discussion in other matters. However, their non-attendance at Executive meetings demonstrates their full confidence and trust in those who are making decisions on their behalf.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: While recognising that the First Minister has full confidence in the Sinn Féin Ministers to do their job, perhaps he will tell the House, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland, why he spends his time attacking the Members of my party who play a role in this Government.
Why does he refuse to attack the Minister in his Executive who has been accused of handing out pipe bombs and who is a self-confessed commander of the Provisional IRA? Why does he not spend some time attacking that Minister?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am at a loss to understand how the Member can produce that supplementary question in view of my reply. I invite him to read Hansard tomorrow and see whether he can find an attack in my comments: I suggest that he will not. I noticed that he started his supplementary question with the word "recognising", and the Deputy First Minister and I welcome his recognition. I ask him, in a comradely spirit, to consider the speeches made at his party conference last Saturday and to ask himself which party was being attacked. What did he and his colleague spend their time doing? Did they spend their time attacking Sinn Féin, or did they spend their time attacking my Colleagues and me?

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Mr Speaker: Mr B Hutchinson is not in his place.

Execution of Robert Emmet (Bicentenary)

Mr Barry McElduff: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he has any plans to mark the bicentenary, in 2003, of the execution of Robert Emmet.
(AQO436/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My Department has no plans to mark the bicentenary of the execution of Robert Emmet. The aftermath of the 1798 rebellion, including Emmet’s attempts to revive the rising, has already been dealt with in the context of the ‘Up in Arms’ exhibition, staged by the Ulster Museum in 1998.

Mr Barry McElduff: OK. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given that the Minister is Minister for all the people — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Was that Irish, Mr McElduff?

Mr Barry McElduff: I said, "OK".

Mr Speaker: It certainly was not parliamentary.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given that the Minister is Minister for all the citizens of the Six Counties, I ask him not to be partisan in the use of public money for the commemoration of historical events. I am thinking of the commemoration of the Act of Union and the preparations for the golden jubilee of the British Queen, for which £200,000 has been set aside. Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans live on the island too, and the Minister should take their concerns on board.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is important that the celebration of one culture does not diminish another. We have celebrated the ‘Up in Arms’ exhibition, which covered the 1798 rebellion, and we have also marked the Act of Union, which, whether one approves of it or not, was a defining moment in modern Irish history, the consequences of which are still with us.
Next year is the Queen’s golden jubilee, and my Department is responsible for co-ordinating Northern Ireland’s jubilee programme as part of a Commonwealth- wide event. It will be a regional, national and international event. Next year, because of a desire expressed by Members, we will mark the annual Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January 2002.
Many celebrations and remembrances are recognised. It is unfortunate that Mr McElduff sees such events in such a narrow way. Marking, or celebrating, one culture does not diminish another. The golden jubilee celebration is a legitimate expression of the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Billy Bell: Has the Minister any plans to mark the 360th anniversary of the Irish rebellion of 1641, in which thousands of Protestant settlers lost their lives, most notably those from my town — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s supplementary question is not in order as it refers to a different event. If I were to permit it, there would be no reason for not raising a series of other events.

Mr Billy Bell: I was coming to the point, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I trust that the Member was coming to the point. If he has a supplementary question about that event, I will allow it.

Mr Billy Bell: That was a preamble to my point. Does the Minister agree that all such commemorations are divisive and out of tune with our peace agenda?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: With the greatest respect, I do not agree. If we were to agree with that, several events would be made redundant, and a body of Orangemen would possibly feel redundant if they were unable to celebrate their events. However, we cannot celebrate everything; we must prioritise. It is also important that events are not dealt with divisively. It is unfortunate, returning to the main question, that Mr McElduff chooses to see the event in divisive terms, rather than as part of a shared cultural heritage. It is something that we all share. We can all celebrate or, at least, mark it.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister accept that if he were to mark the bicentenary of the execution of Robert Emmet, he and the Department might be expected to mark occasions relating to other more suitable people and their careers? Is he thinking of establishing any criteria so that a proper and objective view can be taken of important events, such as the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sir Edward Carson, the 130th anniversary of the birth of Lord Craigavon and the 170th anniversary of Dr Henry Cooke? Those events —

Mr Speaker: I advise the Member to stick to the first part of his question, which was, of course, entirely legitimate.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Minister thinking of establishing criteria whereby his Department can consider suggestions to mark more legitimate and less politically-orientated events?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The celebration next year of the Queen’s golden jubilee is not overtly political, nor should it be divisive. As I said, the Act of Union was a defining moment in modern Irish history, and we are still living with the consequences of it. Such an event merits being marked.
We must be careful about marking the birthdays of individuals, because we must then assess whom we consider to be of particular importance. The Member, for example, mentioned Carson and others. Many of those things spring readily to mind, and their importance is self-evident. I do not see this as being an annual event or something that requires the creation of criteria. Certain things are self-evident, and the Act of Union is one of them. The golden jubilee is being celebrated throughout the kingdom, and, as the Member is aware, Northern Ireland is part of the kingdom. The occasion is being celebrated throughout the Commonwealth, so it is regional, national and international.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that some events can have great local cultural significance? 2003 is the bicentenary of the death of United Irishman Thomas Russell — "the man from God knows where" — who was executed in Downpatrick Gaol, which is now the Down County Museum. Is the Minister aware that the Hearts of Down — a group of museum curators and historians — is organising a series of events to commemorate that, and will he consider funding that group?

Mr Speaker: Order. Virtually every Member who has spoken — including the Minister — has tended to refer to other events entirely. We must bring this round to a close because, in truth, there is probably no end to the issue of the commemoration of events.

Darts

Mr Seamus Close: 3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, pursuant to AQO 399/00, to provide an update on plans by the Northern Ireland Sports Council to recognise darts as a sport.
(AQO 420/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: In previous answers on this matter, I said that the recognition of darts would be considered at the next meeting of the Sports Council’s officers recognition panel. That was scheduled to take place in June, but, unfortunately, it was postponed. Another meeting is planned to take place in December 2001. I understand that the recognition of darts will be on the agenda. Darts has not, so far, been recognised UK-wide as a sport on the grounds that insufficient physical activity is involved.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister agree that the issue is — to use a sporting analogy — constantly kicked into touch? I first asked the question about the recognition of darts as a sport in December 2000. I was advised that the matter would be considered in spring 2001. That did not happen. I posed the question again in May 2001, only to be told that it would be considered in June 2001. It is now almost the end of November 2001, and I am told to expect a reply sometime next month.
The previous question referred to anniversaries, centenaries and bicentenaries. I trust that I shall not be posing my question next year on its second anniversary. Many people feel discriminated against because they do not have access to suitable funding for a worthwhile sport.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Mr Close is right to say that I gave him timetables. Responsibility for activities that are considered sports in Northern Ireland lies with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. Recognition of sports lies with home countries’ sports councils, which have a recognition panel that meets once a year. It was anticipated that the panel would meet earlier in the year, but it has not met to date. I am told that it will meet in December, as I said. It is not in my power to determine when the recognition panel meets, but I anticipate that, because the rules dictate that the panel must meet once a year, it will do so before the end of the year.
If darts is recognised as a sport — this is the reason behind the question and the lobbying — it can apply for National Lottery sports funding. However, simply being recognised as a sport does not guarantee funding. It simply allows access to that fund. I refer the House to the definition of sports used by the Sports Council and throughout the home countries:
"all forms of physical activity, whether through casual or organised participation, aimed at expressing or improving physical fitness, mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels."
Darts has not, so far, been recognised as a sport on the grounds that insufficient physical effort is involved. It may be that the recognition panel has decided to change its opinion, but, as things stand, the likelihood of success should not be rated too highly.

Steering Group (Irish/Ulster-Scots)

Dr Ian Adamson: 4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to indicate which members of the steering group set up by Foras na Gaeilge, Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch, the Ultach Trust and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to research the arts of Irish and Ulster-Scots have expertise in Irish and which in Ulster-Scots.
(AQO 415/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The arts steering group to which the Member refers was set up by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to oversee an audit and needs analysis to provide a comprehensive review of the Irish and Ulster-Scots language arts sector. In setting up the steering group, the Arts Council invited nominations from Foras na Gaeilge, the Ultach Trust, Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The nominees with expertise in Irish are Aodán McPóilin of the Ultach Trust and Deirdre Devitt of Foras na Gaeilge. No member of the steering group has Ulster-Scots expertise.

Dr Ian Adamson: Before I ask my supplementary question, I declare an interest as the founding chairman of the Ulster-Scots Language Society.
The Ultach Trust is used to represent the interests of Ulster-Gaelic in such steering groups. Will the Minister consider using the Ulster-Scots Language Society to represent Ulster-Scots?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The steering group was an advisory panel set up by the Arts Council, not by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The single criterion was the status of the funding partner. One funding partner that the Arts Council went to was Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch, which selected and nominated a representative. However, I understand that the representative does not have expertise in Ulster-Scots.
I see no reason why the Ulster-Scots Language Society should not represent Ulster-Scots. Where, for example, decisions on the defining criteria for membership lie with my Department, I can assure the Member that each case will be examined individually. However, it is, to some extent, out of my hands in cases in which my Department does not set the objective criteria or is not responsible.

Armagh Planetarium

Mr Danny Kennedy: 5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he has made representations to his ministerial colleagues concerning the future of the Planetarium at Armagh.
(AQO 445/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member will be aware that my Department commissioned a review of the planetarium’s activities following its closure in November 2000 for health and safety reasons. The completed review was passed to me three weeks ago. I ensured that it was made available to the planetarium’s management committee, its staff union representative and members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee. My officials will discuss its recommendations with representatives of the management committee. We will also hear representations from the union in the next few weeks. I will raise the issue with my ministerial Colleagues when I have fully considered the review’s recommendations.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s answer. Will he consider making plans to upgrade and extend the Armagh Planetarium and its educational facilities as a major cultural site of international repute and standing that can be used by the entire community?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member is aware that for health and safety reasons the planetarium is only open on a limited basis and that the star theatre remains closed. However, limited opening has proved to be a great success, as has the outreach service to schools and other groups.
The four options suggested by the review were to maintain the status quo on the basis of limited opening; demolition and rebuilding; an expanded outreach service; and closure. It will surprise no one that my preference at this stage would be for the construction of a new planetarium. However, funding issues must be taken into account before a final decision is reached.
I am mindful that the planetarium has an important educational role and that it is not just a matter of pounds and pence. Its historical site beside the observatory is another important asset in the cultural estate. I assure the Member that those issues will be considered carefully and will be discussed with the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee before a decision is reached.

Mr David Hilditch: The Minister touched on the matter of consultation with staff at the Armagh Planetarium during the preparation of the review. Can he reveal the level and detail of that consultation?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I said to Mr Kennedy, I ensured that the review was made available to the staff union representative. The matter is under consideration, and I anticipate responses from several bodies, including the union. I cannot determine the way forward until those responses are received and the issues and concerns are considered.

‘Face to Face’

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he is taking to implement the findings of the document ‘Face to Face’ with regard to increasing accessibility to the arts and cultural activities.
(AQO 418/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The launch of the ‘Face to Face’ document in June 2001 represented a significant milestone in the provision of a framework for the arts and culture sector. Universal accessibility was a core priority, and I have asked that a steering group be set up to advise the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on the implementation of the document’s recommendations. The group will reflect the broad range of interests in the arts and culture community, and its first meeting will take place at the end of November. It will consider the implementation of ‘Face to Face’ in full, including moves to increase accessibility.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’s audit of disabled access must be welcomed. Can the Minister assure Members that funding will be made available to arts facilities and galleries to ensure greater access for disadvantaged and disabled groups through changes in physical access and the use of sign language, Braille and new technology for the transmission of information?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is important to recognise that in order to provide greater accessibility, we must do more than simply tackle the physical barriers; there are social and community barriers as well. We must consider the broad sweep of accessibility.
In November 2000, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure initiated the ADAPT Northern Ireland (Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today) pilot programme to carry out an audit of 40 venues. The audit was completed, and £100,000 has been allocated to allow the pilot programme to continue. In addition, I announced funding of £100,000 for the Arts Council, specifically for widening access. That money allowed for wider access for new generation audiences, early-years provision and the development of partnership with district councils. Therefore, the Department is moving forward on more than one initiative in order to achieve progress in its policy of widening access.

Mr Francie Molloy: Does the Minister agree that the best way to improve access to the arts is to spread funding across the different venues in the North and move away from multi-million, one-off payments to venues such as the Grand Opera House?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I heard "Grand Opera House", but I did not hear the amount that the Member referred to. I stress that there is a spread of funding in the Province. Not all funding is earmarked for big projects; various projects are funded. The Arts Council — through directly voted funds and lottery funds — makes an important contribution, not only to the big venues such as the Grand Opera House and the new Millennium Theatre in Derry but also to smaller venues up and down the country that stage events and festivals.

Lagan Navigation

Mr Edwin Poots: 7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to provide an update on the report commissioned on the potential reopening of the Lagan navigation.
(AQO 433/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The feasibility study update and economic appraisal that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure commissioned in May 2001 on the possible reopening of the 12-mile lower Lagan navigation between Belfast and Sprucefield should be completed by the end of the month. The report will provide the Department with the basis for further discussion with the key partners, such as Lisburn Borough Council, Castlereagh Borough Council, Belfast City Council, the Laganside Corporation and the Environment and Heritage Service, to explore the scope for reopening the abandoned waterway.

Mr Edwin Poots: I welcome the news that the report will come out at the end of the month. Can the Minister assure the House that he will seek funding to assist the local authorities in the reopening of the Lagan navigation? Will he support a measure to give the local authorities vesting powers in situations where it is difficult to release land?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is important to stress that we are considering the Lagan navigation in two parts. I was referring to the lower Lagan navigation, not least because most of the land involved is owned by my Department and other public bodies. Much of the upper Lagan navigation — the Lough Neagh end — has been sold off since its abandonment in the 1950s. Therefore, it is easier and more cost-effective to begin with the section of the canal that is still in public ownership.
It would be difficult to argue the case for public funding for the entire investment. We must consider various ways of obtaining the funding and different approaches to the project. For example, there are 13 locks on the lower Lagan navigation canal alone. As a member of Lisburn Borough Council, Mr Poots will know how much it costs to refurbish one lock, let alone the whole canal. That will involve considerable investment. I will not give a figure for it because the figure that I was given originally has long since been superseded.

Arts Projects (Derry City Council Area)

Mrs Annie Courtney: 8. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the amount of funding awarded to arts projects in the Derry City Council area in the past three years.
(AQO 429/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: In the past three financial years, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland has awarded just under £4 million to arts projects in the Derry City Council area. That figure is made up of funding from the Arts Council’s grant-in-aid from Government sources and the lottery. The figure does not include all of the funding that is available for arts projects, and further funding may come from the council’s special programmes and initiatives.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s response. How much funding will be available for the Millennium project? The Minister will be aware that the project has been running for several years.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: In the past three years, 101 awards have been made in that area — a total of just under £4 million. The single largest award was £2·5 million of lottery funding to the Derry Theatre Trust, for the Millennium forum. The trust is anticipating a building budget deficit of between £100,000 and £300,000. However, I understand that it is hopeful that the Millennium Commission and a private investor will cover the deficit. There is also the possibility of an operating budget deficit in this financial year. The Derry Theatre Trust is working on a strategy to resolve that matter and may submit applications to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and Derry City Council.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the Minister satisfied that a sufficient proportion of the Budget is directed towards promoting community arts in the city?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware of the exact direction that the theatre trust is taking. I cannot answer in detail for the Millennium forum. The theatre has its own management structure, which is responsible for the direction that it takes. I am sure that the criteria for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and lottery funding were satisfied. I would be surprised if they were not meeting the criteria. If the Member has concerns about that, it would be useful if she could write to me. I will ensure that she gets an answer, and I will check that everything is done correctly.

Mr Derek Hussey: Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest inputs to culture and arts in the Derry City Council area is provided by the Apprentice Boys of Derry Association’s celebrations? Will the Minister take the opportunity to wish the association well in its celebrations this Saturday?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Department and I have had a direct interest in the Maiden City Festival, which is sponsored by the Apprentice Boys of Derry. Support has been secured for the festival.
It has been described by a number of people there as one of the best things ever to happen to the Maiden City. Indeed, the Maiden City Festival is going from strength to strength, which shows that there is much more than simply marching or bonfires to the Apprentice Boys. Also, next Saturday’s event has been moved forward to facilitate Christmas shopping in the city, and that shows the responsibility of the leadership of the Apprentice Boys and its ability to celebrate our culture and heritage, which is important to us all.

Cultural Tourism

Mr John Dallat: 9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what steps he is taking to enable a more intensive promotion and expansion of cultural tourism; and to make a statement.
(AQO 425/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My Department and its sponsor bodies can contribute to delivering the Tourist Board’s commitment to developing cultural tourism, and this is reflected in the Department’s corporate strategy. With cross-departmental working, we will strive to ensure that the full potential of our cultural life is realised by attracting visitors and enhancing their experience of Northern Ireland.
Our creativity and cultural expression are unique selling points for us, and we are committed to helping to build a positive image for Northern Ireland through the work of the Northern Ireland Events Company, by developing and enhancing our cultural facilities and by supporting partnerships between the Arts Council, the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland and the Tourist Board.
Belfast’s possible designation in 2008 as European Capital of Culture provides an unprecedented development opportunity for cultural tourism. My Department will be bidding for Executive programme funds to help improve the city’s cultural infrastructure. If successful, this will contribute to making Belfast a more attractive and marketable tourist destination. The report of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure —

Mr Speaker: I am afraid the Minister is over time. I shall have to ask him to give the complete answer in writing to Mr Dallat, who, unfortunately, will not be able to ask a supplementary on this occasion.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Departmental Budget

Mr Billy Armstrong: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what proportion of her departmental budget is used for administrative costs, most notably Civil Service salaries, and what proportion is used for direct support to farmers in the form of direct grants, subsidies and incentive packages.
(AQO443/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Next year, expenditure on the administration of the Department and policy development work is expected to be approximately £27 million, or 6·9% of the total budget. Direct expenditure to farmers, in the form of grants, subsidies, and incentives, should amount to some £187 million, or 47·4% of the total budget. It should be borne in mind, when analysing departmental expenditure, that the budget includes provision for the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service, sea fisheries, meat hygiene enforcement on behalf of the Food Standards Agency and rural development.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Mr Billy Armstrong: It is clear from its annual report that the Department acts merely as an agent of the European Union, paying approximately £160 million of EU grants in rural areas while paying only £16 million of grants in its own right out of a budget of £200 million. Does the Minister accept that it is a disgrace that only 8% of her Department’s spending goes to farmers and others in rural areas?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member needs to remember that the bulk of my Department’s spending goes towards areas that benefit farmers, including the service to farmers through colleges, the advisory services and the veterinary services. While this is not money that goes directly into farmers’ pockets, without those services those farming communities would be at a great disadvantage. What does not go directly into farmers’ pockets goes indirectly or, indeed, directly to their benefit.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: In the light of last week’s announcement, and given the resources that are allocated either to subsidies or to staffing in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will the Minister tell the House how much money will be allocated to bring about the successful prosecution of fraudsters? Will the Minister make a statement to the House on that travesty at the next opportunity?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member is somewhat confused. The fraud that he refers to comes to a total of £17,000. There is an annual fraud bill of £58 million in another Department that is the responsibility of a Minister with whom the Member is very familiar. I am surprised that he is not making a bigger issue of that. There is quite a difference between £17,000 and £58 million.
After a review of fraud, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development brought forward a strategy that was put before the Committee last Friday. It deals with areas where the Department must tighten up. With regard to the specific issue that the Member refers to — the south Armagh cull — the Department has always prosecuted farmers who are found to be in default or are attempting to defraud the system. Last year there were five successful prosecutions. There was also a successful prosecution in August 2001. However, the legislation on which that prosecution was based was challenged, and an appeal was launched. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who was in possession of the facts about the south Armagh cull that I had made available to the House and to the public in July 2001, had arranged dates for seven cases to be heard. The view was that the prosecutions could go ahead.
On the day of the appeal to the August case, however, the DPP decided that it should not go ahead because there was a point of law on which the legislation was weak. He subsequently decided not to go ahead with the cases in south Armagh. Therefore, until recently the Department had been able to prosecute on the basis of that law. It has moved to address the situation. The law is being changed to ensure that that does not happen again.

Mr David Ford: What proportion of modulation money, taken from direct production subsidies to farmers and paid to them under agrienvironment schemes, is retained by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — in the Forest Service, for example?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not have those details to hand. I will write to the Member.

Ms Jane Morrice: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any progress made in developing a common approach to the reform of the common agricultural policy; and to make a statement.
(AQO 437/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council I have agreed with Joe Walsh a set of common concerns and priorities for the development of the common agricultural policy (CAP), and the related issues of EU enlargement and World Trade Organisation negotiations. We have agreed to continue to review developments on those matters. I have regular discussions with my ministerial counterparts in Great Britain on a broad range of agriculture issues, including the future of the CAP. They are aware of my views.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: What is the Minister’s view of the reformist position of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, which seeks to end farm subsidies?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Margaret Beckett’s position on CAP reform reflects the stance that was adopted by successive UK Agriculture Ministers and Governments. I recognise the pressures on CAP and appreciate that further reform is inevitable, but I have grave concerns about the agriculture industry’s ability to embrace radical change at present.
It is crucial that we avoid adding to the difficulties and the genuine fears that exist in rural communities. Any reform of the CAP should take place at a sustainable pace, and we must be prepared to help the industry through the significant difficulties that change will bring. There will be change as a result of the World Trade Organisation negotiations and the need to reform the CAP, but the industry and our farming community must be supported so that they can remain viable.

Mr Derek Hussey: I listened intently to the Minister’s answer to the original question and the supplementary. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the difficulties that will result from the CAP reforms and the enlargement of the European Union. Everyone in the House is aware that agriculture has suffered 10 years of reversal and that it has since been further blighted with the foot-and- mouth disease.
Does the Minister agree that the new dimension adds urgency to the arguments in favour of an early retirement scheme and a loan scheme for farmers? Those would create a legislative framework around which the agriculture industry could be restructured to meet the new threats that will result from the accession of eastern European states to the European Union.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I accept the Member’s point about the early retirement scheme; I know that there is a demand for it in many areas. I received the vision report on the subject some time ago, and I am consulting all interested parties on that. I am examining the possibility of an early retirement scheme, but I have not yet reached a conclusion. A desk study was carried out, but a definitive conclusion was not possible because there was an absence of proper research. I have therefore initiated research to be carried out by University College Dublin and Queen’s University into the impact of early retirement schemes in other parts of the EU. The vision group favours the introduction of a new entrants scheme, but it is not in favour of an early retirement scheme.
I am aware of the need for restructuring, but I cannot come to a conclusion on the matter until I have seen the results of the research into its impact on the industry and its cost-effectiveness. An early retirement scheme might eat up the entire budget, but it would accommodate just a small number of farmers, leaving the vast majority without resources. I am open-minded, and I am examining every angle.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the drive by the World Trade Organisation and statements on world prices by Margaret Beckett and others, will farming be able to survive without agripayments? The pressure created by large-scale production in the USA, Argentina and Brazil means that we will never be able to deal on a level playing field.

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is for that reason that I set up the vision group last year. I am aware that change is imminent and that we will not be able to stop it — we cannot stop the world.
There will be changes. Pressure is being brought to bear on the common agricultural policy because of enlargement and the pressures under the World Trade Organisation for liberalisation in the market. It is not a question of what my opinion is. It is a case of having to face the reality that change is inevitable in the world situation.
It is most important for us to face those changes, to look at the challenges that change will bring and to be ready to meet those challenges. We must ensure that our industry is in a position to meet those challenges. That is why I am concerned about a headlong rush or a quick move to remove subsidies. Change will impact on the level of subsidies, but I want it to be at a pace that will allow us to ensure that our rural communities and farming industry remain viable.

Beef Labelling Regulations

Mr James Leslie: 4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made on the implementation of the new European Union regulations on beef labelling which come into force on 1 January 2002.
(AQO 444/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The EU legislation on beef labelling introduced in July 2000 provided for a two-stage approach to compulsory labelling. The initial compulsory indications that related to a reference number or code, member state or third country of slaughter and member state or third country of cutting were applicable from 1 September 2000. Additional indications requiring the name of the member state or third country in which the animal or group of animals were born and that in which the animal or group of animals were raised must also be shown on the label from 1 January 2002.
Existing legislation provides the necessary powers to enforce the additional, compulsory indications applicable from 1 January 2002. Slaughterhouses, cutting plants, meat processors, retail butchers and trade organisations have already been formally advised of compulsory beef labelling indicators applicable from 1 September 2000 and 1 January 2002. My Department will write again to interested parties to remind them of the additional compulsory indicators in advance of their coming into force.

Mr James Leslie: The Minister will be aware that this matter has been raised in this House before. Can she make it absolutely clear that these regulations will come into force in Northern Ireland on 1 January 2002? Can she clarify whether the beef produce will be stamped "Produce of Northern Ireland" or "Produce of the United Kingdom"?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The regulations will come into force on 1 January 2002. Beef produced in Northern Ireland will be labelled as UK beef, but there is no reason why, for marketing or other reasons, processors or those with commercial concerns cannot put a label of their own choosing on it. However, it will have to bear the UK stamp because that is the member state from which the beef comes.

Animal Health

Mr Joe Byrne: 5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) the number of North/ South working groups that have been established to explore further opportunities for co-operation in the area of animal health, (b) their key areas of work and (c) when she expects to agree common animal health strategies with the Republic of Ireland.
(AQO 426/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: To date, two working groups have been established, and another seven are in the process of being established. The key areas of work for the nine groups are brucellosis, tuberculosis, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), veterinary medicines, zoonoses, animal welfare, animal health schemes, disease surveillance, import/export and cross-border aspects of fraud. We aim to have agreed animal health strategies by 30 September 2002.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. It will be widely welcomed in the farming community. Does the Minister accept that there has been a widespread concern about the health of sheep, particularly in relation to how foot-and-mouth disease spread through that category of farm animals during the recent crisis? Will the Minister indicate if the problem of scrapie in sheep is being tackled, particularly on a North/South, all-Ireland basis?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Scrapie has been present for over 200 years, and it has been a notifiable disease in Northern Ireland since 1992. The control measures taken by my Department include a legal obligation on flock owners to notify the Department of suspected cases of scrapie. Those animals are slaughtered, and the farmers are compensated for their loss. The carcasses are tested by the veterinary science division and then destroyed.
Feeding ruminants meat-and-bone meal has been banned since 1989, and controls in this area were significantly strengthened in 1996. Specified risk material controls were introduced in 1990 for cattle, and in 1996 for sheep. In 1993 the Department initiated a national scrapie monitoring scheme involving a sampling target of 330 sheep per annum at abattoirs.
A programme of active surveillance in accordance with EC Regulation 999/2001 involving sample testing of sheep over 18 months old will start in January 2002. The authorities in the Republic take similar control measures. The nature of the disease and the sheep population in Ireland means that it makes sense to adopt a unified approach. Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, Joe Walsh and I have committed ourselves, in principle, to an all-Ireland approach to achieve the eradication of scrapie on an island-of-Ireland basis. We are consulting on proposals for a voluntary scheme involving genotyping, which is a method of breeding resistance to scrapie into the sheep population, as well as other more focused eradication measures. The proposals for a Northern Ireland scrapie plan are designed to take advantage of the low incidence of scrapie here, to reduce and, over time, to eliminate scrapie from the Northern Ireland flock.

Renewable Energy

Mr George Savage: 6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she proposes to take in regard to the promotion of renewable energy through the use of biofuels.
(AQO 442/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I fully support the development of renewable energy sources. However, the responsibility for biofuels falls outside the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Department for Regional Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment are responsible. Invest Northern Ireland (INI) has a role in the promotion of energy plants using biofuels. My Department promotes the use of biofuels and biolubricants where it makes business sense to do so. For example, Forest Service actively encourages the use of biodegradable oils in its vehicles and machines in support of certification of its forests under the United Kingdom woodland assurance standard. Other forestry machinery will be adjusted to use biodegradable products where practicable and where operations can realistically bear the additional costs. Similarly, forestry contractors will be encouraged to follow the example set by Forest Service.

Mr George Savage: Will the Minister undertake to investigate the potential of amoebic systems, which combine the safe disposal of agrifood waste, avoiding the dangers of botulism, with cheap eco-friendly energy production? That would enable us to meet European standards for renewable energy, which we currently fail to do.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not understand the question. However, when I have digested it and the Member has talked to me about it, I will consider it.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister consider a cross-departmental project, which could be funded from Executive funds, to promote the use of digesters in both farm waste and waste management? That would be a very useful project for the community.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The responsibility for that does not lie with my Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I cannot take a lead on that. However, if propositions are put to me I will look at them.

Rural Tourism

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any update on the work of the Peace II natural resource rural tourism initiative; and to make a statement.
(AQO 439/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Minister of the Environment and I have agreed four of the local partnerships that will deliver this initiative. The partnerships are Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, South Armagh Tourism Initiative, Mourne Heritage Trust and Sperrins Tourism Ltd. The partnership group for the Fermanagh area will be announced shortly. A consultation exercise was carried out in parallel with the initial invitation to prospective partnerships interested in delivering the initiative. A reply to the 36 written responses to the consultation exercise will be issued very shortly. The partnerships will have up to six months to prepare sustainable tourism strategies for their respective target areas.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the work being done in this area. I am sure that she is aware that there is concern about how long it is taking to get these projects off the ground. When will the successful local partnerships be in a position to call for project applications?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Successful partnerships will have up to a maximum of six months to produce a sustainable tourism development strategy for their target areas, which will bring us to May 2002. However, in view of the tight timetable for the Peace II programme, strategies will be considered as they are received. When approved, the strategies will be awarded an interim indicative financial allocation to allow work to begin. Final indicative allocations will be made when all the strategies have been assessed.

Grading (Meat Plants)

Mr Edwin Poots: 8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the potential benefits of having meat plants carrying out grading.
(AQO431/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assume that the question follows the vision group recommendation that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should consider, in consultation with the industry, the transfer of carcass classification from the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) to the meat companies. The fact that the vision group has made this recommendation, as with all other recommendations, should not be taken to imply that I or my officials either support or oppose it. I will want to take account of comments received on this, as on other recommendations, during the consultation exercise, before making a decision.

Mr Edwin Poots: First, it is a disgrace that the Minister has not made a statement on the statement made last week to the House.
Secondly, I do not assume that the Minister has made any decisions on whether meat plants should be grading or not. I have asked the Minister to outline the potential benefits. I can see the potential downside. The question still sits before the Minister.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not aware of the statement the Member is referring to. Many statements are made in the House. He has not been specific.
As regards the question that he asked, I clearly indicated that I do not want to prejudge any of the debate that is taking place or the conclusion that I will come to following consultation. The Member would be the first to criticise me if I stood up in the House and prejudged issues that are currently the subject of consultation.

Farmed Fish

Ms Mary Nelis: 9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) the number of farmed salmon which have escaped from the Northern Salmon Company Ltd in Glenarm and (b) the number of farmed fish which have escaped over the past three years.
(AQO 448/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Northern Salmon Company Ltd has reported to the Department that approximately 13,000 salmon escaped when a net at Glenarm suffered structural damage during a storm in August. There is no method of independently assessing this figure. The Northern Salmon Company Ltd is currently dealing with its insurers. There have been no other escapes of farmed fish from the Northern Salmon Company Ltd or other farms in Northern Ireland over the past three years.

Ms Mary Nelis: I am sure the Minister has noted that Glenarm salmon is on the menu here today. In view of the concerns expressed about farmed salmon escapees and the disastrous effects that they have on the Atlantic wild salmon population, does the Minister have any plans to monitor the situation at Glenarm?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Glenarm salmon frequently turns up on the menu here, and I was in a restaurant on Saturday night where it was also on the menu. I wondered how it had suddenly become so popular.
Members have raised concerns about the genetic integrity of the wild fish, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will keep a close eye on that area. However, the Department has already conducted some work in that area. It monitored the genetic composition of the salmon stock in the river, following an escape in 1990. That indicated that some change in the genetic composition of the wild population had taken place, and that was probably attributable to interbreeding between wild fish and escaped farmed fish in the lower part of the river.
There is no evidence that such a change is detrimental to the wild population, but precautionary scientific advice is to remove as many of the escaped farmed fish from the river as possible. Accordingly, no fish of farm origin would be selected as brood stock as part of any fishery enhancement activity, and the Department’s technical staff will repeat the electro-fishing operation to remove any remaining escapees before the spawning period.

Vision Group Report

Mr Eddie McGrady: 10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) when the conference addressing the report of the vision group into the future of the agrifood industry will take place (b) when the consultation will end and (c) to make a statement in respect of the meetings she has held to date with interested parties.
(AQO 438/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The conference will take place tomorrow. The consultation period ends on 31 December 2001. As part of the consultation process, I have begun a series of meetings with stakeholders in order to obtain their preliminary views on the vision report. So far, I have met organisations that represent farmers, consumers, processors and environmental interests. A programme of meetings with other stakeholders has been arranged.

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation, (1/01/R) established by resolution on 10 September 2001, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Following the resolution of the Assembly on 10 September, the Ad Hoc Committee established to consider the proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and its associated scheme met on 17 September, and I was elected as Chairperson. As Chairperson, it is my responsibility to present a report to the Assembly for its endorsement.
I shall give a brief overview of the background of the draft proposals and the work that the Committee undertook. In October 1997, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Dr Marjorie Mowlam MP, established the Northern Ireland’s Victims Commission to consider possible ways to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence associated with the troubles. That commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, reported in April 1998, and one of its recommendations was for the Government to establish an objective, independent and wide-ranging review of the fitness for purpose of the compensation system as it operated in Northern Ireland.
On 12 August 1998, the then Minister for Victims, Adam Ingram, announced the Government’s intention to establish such a review as part of the Victims Liaison Unit’s package of measures. That review was established, and, in July 1999, a report was issued for consultation, prior to the final recommendations being submitted to the Government.
I will list some of its recommendations for a fairer, more equitable, open and transparent system. Compensation should continue to be decided by the Compensation Agency, with a right of appeal to the courts; there should be a simpler method of deciding how much compensation is paid for less serious injuries; victims who suffer more serious injuries should continue to have their claims assessed as at present; where a person has died as a result of violent crime, an enhanced bereavement support payment should be payable up to a maximum for any one family of £50,000; compensation for psychiatric illness should be paid in a wider range of cases; there should be more flexibility in the time limit for making an application; and cases should be capable of being reopened in particular circumstances.
The Government’s response to those proposals was contained in the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and the draft Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2002. The Government did not accept all the review’s recommendations.
Over the past few weeks, the Ad Hoc Committee has heard evidence from various interested bodies — the Compensation Agency, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and Victim Support Northern Ireland. During those meetings, many issues were raised, and the Committee considered each in detail.
The proposals are being taken forward by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Committee welcomed the opportunity to comment on them in their draft form. The key features of the proposed new arrangements are the introduction of a tariff of injuries, setting out the value of specific injuries; the hearing of appeals by an independent appeals panel; and the removal of paid legal assistance from the scheme, to be replaced by support and help from Victim Support Northern Ireland. There should also be wider eligibility criteria and other changes to eradicate anomalies; the removal of specific terrorist exclusion provisions; and provisions for past victims of child sex abuse, who cannot claim because of the current statutory time limits, to make a fresh claim.
The Committee had reservations about the proposed legislation. The assumption that a tariff system is in the best interests of victims of crime is erroneous. All the evidence suggests that it is a cost-saving exercise that will reduce the compensation paid to victims of crime, while removing paid legal assistance. The Committee felt that the removal of the right of appeal to the courts as part of the due process of law is fundamentally flawed and may be subject to challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Committee recognised the role played by Victim Support Northern Ireland over many years in supporting and counselling victims. However, the proposal to use Victim Support Northern Ireland in a quasi-legal support role is inappropriate, given the reservations outlined in its submission.
The Committee noted the core recommendations set out in the Law Society of Northern Ireland’s supplementary memorandum of evidence. It called for the establishment of a working party with a general remit to examine the compensation process. The key objective would be to bring about systematic improvement by addressing the problems of delay and ensuring transparency, communication and closer liaison among agencies in the system. The Committee encouraged the Northern Ireland Office to engage with the Law Society and give due consideration to its proposals.
In light of the Committee’s reservations about the proposed new arrangements, the Committee recommended that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its current form. Despite a tight timescale, the Committee considered all the proposals, and, although some of them would be welcome, the Assembly should send a strong message to the Northern Ireland Office that the proposals should not be implemented as they stand in the draft Order and scheme. I recommend that all Members lend their support to our report and its recommendations.

Mr Ken Robinson: I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff and those who gave evidence to the Committee or made written submissions that helped us in our consideration of the proposals. We were charged by the Assembly to produce a report by 27 November, and we have fulfilled that duty, albeit with just a day to spare. We held six Committee meetings, took oral evidence from four bodies and received submissions from another six. The record of that evidence is in annexes three and four of the report.
The Ad Hoc Committee took its scrutiny role seriously. Given the central importance of victims in our society, we were guided by a shared desire to recognise their trauma and continuing suffering. As far as possible, we also wished to ensure that society understood why victims deserved to have their suffering considered sensitively and practically. In that context, I welcome the proposal referred to in paragraph 66 on page 17 of the report, which seeks to introduce a "bereavement support payment". Victim Support Northern Ireland and many other bodies also welcome that proposal, which not only acknowledges the grief and sorrow caused by the death of the victim but ensures that there will be no further misinterpretation of the purpose of the payment. The proposed extension of the cohabitation definition, as noted in paragraph 67 on page 17 of the report, together with the two-year residential time frame, are also viewed as positive indications of a desire to reduce the trauma for victims and their families.
For those claiming compensation for psychological injuries, the proposal is to widen the eligibility criteria, and that is also viewed as a positive step towards recognising the suffering of many in our society. I welcome the removal of the stipulation requiring a person "to be present at the scene of the crime". Anyone who reads the case submitted by Victim Support Northern Ireland on page 108, paragraph 3i, will concur. That case concerns a lady who was confronted by a harrowing scene at the end of her lane, following a heinous crime perpetrated by terrorists. As any good Samaritan would, she responded to the need of that fellow human being, who died in her arms. She was subsequently denied compensation for the trauma that she had experienced, as she was deemed not to have been present at the scene of the horrific crime.
I welcome the inclusion of the proposal to define a disabling mental illness, rather than the previous reference to serious and disabling mental disorder and to have that confirmed by psychiatric diagnosis. That is a step forward in recognising the different forms of trauma experienced by victims.
So far, I have welcomed the proposals in the draft Order, but I must now express some serious concerns. The proposals purport to address the needs of the victim regarding time scales, transparency and reduction of trauma. One could be forgiven, however, for drawing the conclusion that the tariff system is a device for reducing compensatory payments. The wisdom of removing the assessment of compensation from the judiciary and placing it in the hands of the executive arm of Government is to be questioned. On page 19 paragraph 3c of the report it states that the Law Society of Northern Ireland proposes the establishment of a working party that would include representatives of the professions, agencies and victims in order to prevent such a contingency. I welcome that proposal. The working party would consider the present system, identify measures to reduce delays, improve inter-agency communication and seek to increase transparency.
The Committee considered that the proposals in the draft Order exacerbated the claimant’s distress by constraining his or her ability to have needs individually assessed, even more than the present arrangements. The example submitted by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers — the details are on page 69 — concerning the individual impact that the loss of an eye would have on a pilot as opposed to an elderly person highlights the need for each case to be assessed individually.
I am in serious conflict with the proposal to withdraw paid legal assistance from claimants. We recommend that, in the interests of fairness, paid legal assistance should continue. The tariff system will seriously erode the ability of a claimant to receive adequate or equitable settlement. The stipulations concerning multiple injuries, as commented upon in paragraphs 78 and 79 on page 19 of the report, illustrate the point that the tariff system’s inflexibility will cause claimants to lose out. We also noted that the scale of tariffs is significantly lower than that currently available under the 1996 Northern Ireland "Green Book" formula.
Victims will be penalised by any proposals that are designed to deduct payments from private healthcare insurance towards medical expenses or healthcare arrangements. That situation would be further exacerbated by the proposed removal of compensation for the loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks following an injury and the removal of compensation for special expenses, such as the adaptation of accommodation, unless earnings capacity had been lost. Both proposals appear punitive and are not in keeping with the Northern Ireland Victims Commission’s remit to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence. After all, that was what led to the 1998 review of criminal injuries compensation, 64 recommendations of which laid the basis for many of the current proposals.
I subscribe fully to recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 and to the conclusion in recommendation 10 that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its present form.
Finally, the role envisaged for Victim Support Northern Ireland is grossly unfair to that highly respected body. How can it be expected to assemble on a Province- wide basis the number of highly skilled personnel needed to deal with thousands of extremely complicated cases? That defies all logic, as the Committee of the Centre highlighted in its submission, reproduced on page 79 of the report.
The withdrawal of legal aid will save an estimated £7 million, yet additional funding of only £400,000 will be provided for Victim Support. Surely, there is cause for concern that, if the level of support to claimants that is envisaged in paragraph 50 on page 14 is introduced, applicants will not receive the representation that is currently provided by geographically well dispersed, long-standing legal firms with expertise in the field. That fact cannot be ignored.
Victim Support should be given an enhanced, proactive role that reflects its specific expertise in providing support and counselling for the victims of crime. I support the recommendation made by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its present form.

Mr Alban Maginness: We have all become sensitised to the need to recognise the position of victims. One of the outstanding success stories is that, since the agreement, we have built a consensus that recognises the special needs and place of victims. I wish that that recognition were reflected in the draft legislation. It seems that the Government have not learnt the lesson that victims in Northern Ireland deserve special attention, sensitivity and care. Not only are the proposals presented to the Assembly inadequate, they are antipathetic to the interests of victims. The Ad Hoc Committee’s report reflects the concern that we, as legislators, have for victims of violent crime in Northern Ireland. This is probably the worst piece of draft legislation that the British Government have presented to the Assembly for consideration.
The Ad Hoc Committee’s robust critique of the Government’s proposals has done a great service to the cause of victims. It has highlighted the gross deficiencies in the proposed legislation. The draft Order purports to reflect the Bloomfield report; it does not do that. The proposed legislation departs materially from the Bloomfield report, which did not recommend that all injuries should be governed by a tariff scheme. The Bloomfield report proposed that minor injuries should be considered by a tariff scheme.
Along with other members of the Committee, I have misgivings about adjudging even minor injuries on a tariff basis. However, serious injuries should surely not be adjudged on a tariff basis. Ken Bloomfield made it clear that he excluded serious injuries from any tariff scheme. He also said that he would retain the right of appeal to the county court for victims of violent crime. That is an important provision, because the right of appeal to the courts is a safeguard for everyone, particularly for the victims of violent crime.
If there is no right of appeal to a court, a victim’s position with the statutory agency —the Compensation Agency — is seriously weakened. As Ken Robinson suggested, that hands over adjudication of compensation for victims to the executive. In the Western World at least, the separation of powers is regarded as a fundamental part of constitutional politics. In other words, the executive is separate from the judiciary. It is important that that separation is maintained, because it is a safeguard for everyone. The proposed legislation fuses the executive and the judiciary. There is no effective appeal to a judicial body. That is fundamentally wrong.
The Ad Hoc Committee considered the tariff scheme carefully and unanimously opposed it. The Committee believes that a tariff system is inadequate for safeguarding the interests of victims, as there is no individual assessment of the pain and suffering that someone has endured. As Bloomfield said:
"there is no objectively ‘right’ sum of money that can compensate an individual for the pain and suffering he or she has endured as a result of an injury".
Furthermore, the Judicial Studies Board, in its ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injuries’, 3rd edition, 1996, states:
"there is no right or exact figure for all cases involving the same injury, because no two victims suffer in exactly the same way".
The proposed tariff system implies that everyone who breaks a leg endures the same pain and suffering. That is wrong, and that proposition should not be adopted into our law. A tariff system cannot properly compensate the victim of violent crime; it cannot compensate a person at all. The absence of individual consideration of pain and suffering goes to the heart of the proposals. We should not embrace the tariff system.
The tariff system is an invention of the civil servant mind. It attempts to bar code pain and suffering, and that cannot be done. Suffering is an individual experience, and it requires individual assessment. If one were to canvass opinion among victims who have suffered grievously, one would hear exactly that. Many victims have had misgivings about our judicial system and about their treatment by lawyers and others. Nonetheless, given the choice, they would opt for the court rather than for an anonymous system that would not, in my view and in the view of the Committee, compensate the individual.
The proposals remove the right of appeal to the courts. Instead, a board will consider the cases of victims who have been dealt with by the Compensation Agency. The board will act as a court of appeal. We know from experience what such boards are like. We know the difficulties encountered by people who appeal decisions on disability living allowance. We know that honest citizens who appeal to such boards go through severe trauma. We must not be fooled: the boards are not judicial bodies, and they will not bring the same judgement and discretion to the cases of victims as the courts do.
The amounts given in the proposed scheme do not reflect the current level of awards in Northern Ireland; they are grossly undervalued. They are supposed to reflect pain and suffering, but they do not. The evidence from the Law Society shows that victims’ pain and suffering are being greatly undervalued.
The green book — the guide to personal injuries that lawyers and judges use — shows that quite plainly.
However, it gets worse. In cases of multiple major injuries, it is proposed that people should be compensated in full only for their worst injury. The compensation for the second most serious injury, even if it should be £50,000, can be reduced to 30% of that amount. The compensation for the third most serious injury is reduced to 15% of the possible amount payable. Therefore, a person is awarded 145% out of a possible 300%.
People’s compensation is being deliberately undervalued according to this scheme, and the Government make no bones about it. That is the formula. Worse still, no compensation whatsoever is payable for the fourth and subsequent injuries. How can that be regarded as equitable or just? I ask anyone who is reasonable and objective to say that the scheme is fair and equitable. It clearly is not.
The scheme also compensates for minor injuries. In order to qualify for minor injury compensation, the claimant must jump over three hurdles. He or she must have three separate injuries; a black eye is not enough, a claimant must have other injuries as well. There must also be significant residual effects that last for more than six weeks, and the injured party must have made two visits to a medical person. There are three different hurdles to jump over, and that is unjust. The test is wrong and unfair.
On examining the system in more detail, it becomes obvious that people will not be compensated for pecuniary losses such as loss of earnings. Claimants must be out of work for 28 weeks before they can receive one penny of compensation for loss of earnings. That is clearly unjust — a child could tell you that that is unjust.
How does that square up with the Government’s view that it is a new and wonderful system that will help victims? How could it possibly help a victim to lose half a year’s earnings through no fault of their own and not receive compensation? How could that possibly be just, right or fair? And yet, the Government have the cheek to present these proposals to us and dress them up by saying that they are trying to produce a new system that is fair to victims and will help them. How can that possibly be, in present circumstances?
Although we received assurance to the contrary, this fact must be highlighted: the proposals suggest that private insurance and private pension awards, as a result of injuries, should be deducted from any pecuniary loss. People would not — despite the fact that they paid into their pension fund or insurance fund — be able to enjoy that money. Instead, it would be deducted from any pecuniary loss. Surely that is wrong and unfair. We received a letter from the NIO in which it explains somehow that that does not form the substance of its proposal. If that is the case, let us hold the NIO to that commitment. It is important to highlight that today, in case the Government should back-pedal.
The Government have turned off the tap of legal assistance to victims of violent crime by refusing to pay reasonable legal or medical costs. How can that be just? How does that advance the interests or status of victims? Victims who need legal assistance in this complex area of law will not receive it. Surely that is wrong, given that at present we are trying to help victims of violent crime.
The Government say plainly that they aim to save £7 million. Is that not a cruel assertion? That £7 million is important to victims of crime who require legal advice. It is wrong that the Government should refuse to continue to provide legal assistance. As Ken Robinson said, the Government are putting back only £400,000 to Victim Support Northern Ireland. Its staff have done a tremendous job in giving practical care and counselling to the victims of crime here. That is their role; their job is not to act as surrogate lawyers. Victims seeking compensation through this complicated process will be deprived of practical legal assistance. If people seek legal advice, they will have to pay for it themselves. That is wrong.
The Government then go even further to disadvantage victims by proposing that the limitation period for claims be reduced from three years to two. How can they justify that? They have included what they would call a "safety net" whereby, in the interests of justice, that limitation period can be altered. However, those boards will act as tribunals, and it will be difficult to argue for an extension of the time period. It is already difficult to gain an extension in the ordinary courts, which apply a three-year time limit, but it will be even more difficult to argue to a tribunal for an extension to the two-year limitation period.
Several parts of the proposed legislation would further disadvantage victims. However, there are some good aspects. For example, applicants for criminal injury compensation who have a criminal conviction will be given more flexibility. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you wish me to bring my remarks to a close?

Ms Jane Morrice: A number of Members still wish to speak, so I invite you to draw your remarks to a conclusion.

Mr Alban Maginness: I will finish by saying that those who are excluded from compensation because of previous convictions, particularly for scheduled offences, will be treated with greater discretion. One only has to look at the Creighton case, which has been foremost in our minds in considering this. If somebody has fully rehabilitated himself, it is surely fair and just that he be compensated.
My final point on this is that the Government have said that they sought certainty and simplicity for victims and sought to be transparent in dealing with them. Quite clearly, these proposals, in my view and in the view of the Committee, will provide greater uncertainty and frustration for victims of violent crime. This system will be much more complicated than the present one, and the House should send a clear message to the Government that it unanimously adopts this report to stop this bad legislation in its tracks.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I assure Members that my speech will not be as long as that of the last Member. First, I want to record my appreciation and thanks to the Committee and research staff for all the work and help that they give to the Committee.
There are probably a number of points in this that could be welcomed. I agreed with Mr Ken Robinson when he talked about bereavement support payment and the less restrictive method of determining psychological injuries. However, overall I believe that NIO cynically used the Kenneth Bloomfield review on victims, which reported in July 1999, as an opportunity for a cost- cutting exercise on the criminal injuries system.
The introduction of the tariff system for injuries received cross-party and unanimous opposition in the Committee. It is unfair and inflexible, as it does not take into consideration an individual’s particular circumstances. In most cases it would have the effect of reducing the amount of compensation to a fixed level. There is a sliding downward scale of compensation for multiple injuries, and the whole system is not index-linked but subject to a review in three years. The tariff system is already in place in Britain. It has been a source of controversy there, and there is general unhappiness with it. Indeed, the appeals panel has overturned in the region of 70% of the original decisions, which shows just how flawed the original process was. We should not take the view that because a system is in place in Britain, we must slavishly follow it here.
NIO then went on to argue that the introduction of a tariff-based scheme will so simplify the process that it will not require the services of a legal professional. Instead, Victim Support can do the job previously done by solicitors. I am sure that everyone here will agree that Victim Support does an excellent job helping victims of crime and the trauma that entails. However, I do not believe that it has the resources, the capacity, or the required legal background to fulfil the role that solicitors do. Victim Support has eight offices throughout the North of Ireland, with three full-time staff in each, and in the region of 200 volunteers whose hours vary from a few per week upwards. The intention is to recruit nine extra advice workers and about 100 extra volunteers. None of the people who work for Victim Support has legal qualifications, so compare that with the number of solicitors throughout the North of Ireland.
There are over 600 practising solicitors in the North of Ireland, who are easily accessible and have offices in all towns. If someone is a victim of crime, he or she can go to a solicitor for help and advice.
In tandem with these proposals, the NIO intends to make paid legal assistance unavailable to victims of crime. The Ad Hoc Committee objects strongly to that. The NIO is not saying that a solicitor cannot be consulted. However, it is removing any financial help to do so. Victims must, therefore, pay for legal advice, which discriminates against those who are less well off and those who are statistically more likely to be the victims of crime. It seems that the Government want to pay only lip service to equality obligations.
The Human Rights Commission and other organisations that gave evidence to the Committee raised concerns that that may be in breach of international human rights norms for the right to legal representation. It appears to be a cynical cost-cutting exercise by the British Government and the NIO. It is estimated that money will be saved in the long term because of reduced compensation costs. It is also estimated that in the removal of paid assistance the Government will save £7 million, while the cost of enlisting Victim Support would be only £0·4 million.
There was some improvement in the draft legislation on ex-prisoners, particularly those who were imprisoned for political reasons, through the removal of the explicit and discriminatory block to compensation for those convicted under the provisions of emergency law. However, considering that the majority of ex-political prisoners were sentenced to more than two and a half years’ imprisonment, the proposed scheme will make no tangible difference to their situation.
The Secretary of State may also make a decision on the basis of other evidence that is available to him or her, which raises the prospect of intelligence reports that cannot be challenged. Paragraph 38 of the draft legislation, which deals with compensation in fatal cases, shows that while the explicit disqualification has been removed, implicit disqualification will remain. That is contrary to the search for a new, inclusive society, particularly when those who were caught up in the conflict, and their families, are still being discriminated against and punished.
Under the current legislation, and also under the proposed legislation, no distinction is made between people convicted of ordinary crime and people with political convictions. That is wrong. The majority of people who were in jail for political reasons would not have seen the inside of a prison but for the abnormal political conditions in the North of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement recognises that the conflict was political and that it required a political solution. The British Government and the NIO should follow that through to its logical conclusion and distinguish between political and non-political convictions.
There should be compensation for loss of earnings. Awards should not be subject to reductions that take social security, healthcare and insurance benefits into account. There are problems in the current system with delay, transparency, communication and liaison. The legal profession recognises that. The Law Society of Northern Ireland has recommended that a working party, representing the judiciary, the legal profession, agencies and professionals working within the current system, and representatives of victims, should be set up to examine ways of improving the current system. That is a sensible approach.
I want to draw attention to wrongful action by the NIO in its treatment of the Ad Hoc Committee. When NIO representatives were invited to give evidence, the NIO initially tried to set the parameters of the debate. It attempted to rap the Committee over the knuckles when Committee members raised legitimate concerns, as is their right. That behaviour is unacceptable.
Recommendation 10 of the Committee’s report states
"That the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its current form."
Sinn Féin supports the report, and that recommendation in particular. I hope that the British Government and the NIO take heed of the Assembly’s strong message. It should not use the new political dispensation to ride roughshod over the rights of people who are the victims of crime.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee I support the conclusions and recommendations contained i`n the report. The Committee considered all the evidence brought before it, bearing in mind that compensation for people who have suffered extreme pain and deaths because of violence from whatever source is a sensitive issue.
The Committee took evidence from people who are experienced in the problems associated with criminal injuries compensation, and I thank them for their contributions. I also thank the staff who serviced the Committee and the Members from all parties who played a constructive and valuable role as we reached our conclusions. It was a pleasure and a privilege for me to act as Chairperson on several occasions.
I consider the report to be fair and reasonable, covering all aspects, and I hope the Secretary of State, the British Government and our Government will abide by its recommendations.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I welcome the recommendations and congratulate the Committee on the extensive evidence taken. I concur with the comments of my learned Friend, the Member for North Belfast, Mr Maginness. He is correct that the fundamental principle is whether a tariff system should be used at all.
The use of a tariff system is fundamentally inequitable, because it treats individuals as a number each time and implies that every person’s injury can be treated in the same way. That is absurd, and the Government should look at the comments of the House again. This is not an acceptable piece of legislation in its current form.
There is a caveat to that. I disagree with the Committee to some extent with regard to recommendation 5 in which the Committee suggests that the Secretary of State should not regard a person’s criminal record when determining a reward when that person’s actions, which may be indicative of that record, cannot be shown to be responsible for the act of criminal violence that resulted in the injuries for which compensation is sought.
I disagree. A person’s past behaviour — in particular criminal convictions for serious offences — should be taken into consideration. If a person’s behaviour in the past is indicative of a particular lifestyle which results in serious criminal injury, I am not comfortable with the concept that taxpayers should have to compensate him for having placed himself in that position.
However, I can see the problem with that. Having to demonstrate that a person is responsible for the act of criminal violence that resulted in the injuries is almost impossible unless it is somebody with a record of grievous bodily harm who starts a fight, gets injured and tries to claim compensation. Clearly that person is responsible.
However, a serial burglar’s house may be burgled. He goes downstairs to confront the intruder and is injured, but the test should not apply, because he did not ask to be burgled. However, I do have a difficulty with saying that taxpayers should be forced to compensate somebody whose activities in the past were clearly antisocial and who does not deserve compensation, so I have some difference with the Committee.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: What would the Member say if a person were involved in some petty crime in his youth then lived a normal life, but after 20 years something happened, and he submitted a claim for compensation? Would that person, in the Member’s opinion, have disqualified himself twenty years ago?

Mr Duncan Dalton: No, I would not suggest to the House that any conviction of any sort should automatically disbar a person from receiving some form of compensation. Obviously it is something that must be taken into account; the individual circumstances of each person must be taken into account.
However, it is right that the Secretary of State should retain a degree of discretion. Where a person’s behaviour and criminal convictions demonstrate a particular type of lifestyle — where that person is clearly involved in criminal activity on a constant and ongoing basis — they should not be eligible for criminal compensation. If a drug-dealing gangster such as Johnny Adair gets beaten over the head, there is no way that honest, decent taxpayers should have to foot the bill for compensation for someone like that. That is the position that I would take. It should not necessarily be applied to a person who, for instance, commits a minor offence as a youth. We can all perform indiscretions in our youth, and I do not see that that should have such a serious and deleterious effect on a person’s entire life.
I would, however, make some distinction in relation to very serious offences, even those committed at an early age. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Creighton’s position, but I have some difficulty with the idea of somebody who was convicted of so serious an offence as throwing a petrol bomb at age 18 receiving compensation. When one looks at the devastation, mayhem and death that has been caused by petrol bombs in our society, one should realise that the consequences of throwing that petrol bomb — for the thrower, as well as those on the receiving end — could be life-altering. For that person, it is life-altering in the sense that they place themselves outside a particular category of our society. Where someone performs an act that is so damaging to society in general — an act that can cause death — that person should not receive compensation at a later stage. However, I broadly support the recommendations of the Committee.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: For the Member’s information, the Committee makes the distinction that he refers to at paragraph 73 of the report.

Mr Duncan Dalton: In recommendation 5, the Committee clearly suggests that
"the Secretary of State should not, in determining an award, have regard to a person’s criminal record".
That is the recommendation with which I am taking issue.
I broadly agree with the rest of the report. The comments that I made earlier on tariffs were correct. You cannot treat injuries of a similar nature caused to different people in the same way. It is completely unreasonable to accept that the loss of an eye for one person is the same as the loss of an eye for another. If I were to have my legs injured, it probably would not be that deleterious to my lifestyle, but if Joe Brolly were to have his legs broken, it would probably be severely deleterious to his lifestyle — and probably also to his team’s performance. Obviously, you must take into account the individual’s circumstances and their lifestyle. That cannot be done under a tariff system, so for that reason I agree with the general thrust of the report.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the work done by the Committee staff, the Committee members and those who attended all the meetings. Considerable effort was needed to complete the work by the date that was given. I commend that and welcome the report, its findings and its proposals to Government.
Most of the points have already been covered. The purpose of the Bloomfield Report was to deal with criminal injuries in a normal situation — or "normality", as it is often called — and not the kind of situation that we have had here over the last long number of years. Therefore, I take issue with the point that you cannot make distinctions between particular injuries.
The purpose of injuries compensation is to allow a person, injured through any situation, to get his or her life back on track again. The abnormal situation that we have lived through here must be taken into account. It is different to what would generally be covered by such a scheme. The Committee recommended a fairer, more equitable, open and transparent system. However, that is not what the Government are offering us. The introduction of the tariff system, and the independent appeals panel, has been mentioned, and the role of the panel and the people who are likely to have recourse to it have been outlined.
The removal of paid legal assistance is of particular concern; it is to be replaced by help from Victim Support. Support from a local solicitor was always something that people could depend on, whether they were facing a tribunal, an independent panel or anything else. The solicitor is usually on the side of the applicant or the person defending himself. That does not always happen in tribunals. Those dealing with appeals or tribunals in relation to disability living allowance, or other such allowances, become desensitised to the interests of the individual. That could happen in criminal injuries appeals. The whole system would therefore work against the individual and the individual’s ability to defend himself. People who have gone through trauma are not in a strong position to defend themselves. You would need to bring a couple of barristers with you to most tribunals just to survive and get through them or to get any compensation. I am not sure that that is the way to go.
There are positive aspects, and they have been mentioned. The Committee seemed to be almost totally opposed to the recommendations by the Government from the start. The Government are looking for a back-door method of cost saving and cost cutting, and they are using the Bloomfield report as a way of doing that. My Colleague Dara O’Hagan mentioned that we should not have to rigidly adhere to what they do across the water. That system was not right for us. I see no reason why we cannot have a system of our own, or why we cannot improve on the system that is already there and that is of benefit to individuals. We should take a proper look at that, rather than have a straightforward cost-saving exercise, which seems to be the sole intent of the Government.
The individual is losing out in cases involving trauma and physical or psychological injury. Cases should be dealt with on an individual basis, and, as has been mentioned, they should not be given bar codes. For example, a rape attack could impact on a person’s future career and whether she could continue with that career. The consequential loss of earnings over the next few years, or damage to career prospects, is not compensated for. The person could lose a huge amount of money under the proposed system. We have been told that there is no upper limit, but I do not believe that, and solicitors do not believe it either. People will lose out badly.
We have agreed that paid legal assistance should continue to be available to people who wish to make application for compensation. The large number of people applying was mentioned. Often it is those who are most in need who are least able to pay for assistance. They probably are the majority of those applying. The Secretary of State, despite having some arbitrary powers, has not dealt with very many cases. That can hardly be considered an extra benefit.
There is also the question of deductions from the compensation to those who receive benefits or who have received a payment for health or other insurance. That poses the question of whether those on benefits enjoy equality with those who are in full-time employment.
I agree with recommendation 10 that the proposed legislation should not be introduced at this time. That is the key message for the Government. They must reconsider the situation.
It must be recognised that Victim Support Northern Ireland’s original role was an important one. However, I am not sure that it can fulfil this role. In practice, it may be very difficult. That is for Victim Support Northern Ireland to sort out for itself.
The issue of prisoners is very important to us. Submissions that we received show that in a fair and just compensation system singling out people with convictions is unfair, unjust and a denial of basic human rights. For years, ex-prisoners have suffered discrimination and have had claims denied solely because they were ex-prisoners. Whether or not the victim of a criminal injury has a previous conviction should not be taken into account when his or her claim is being assessed.
Various types of crimes have been mentioned. I know of one person whose house was burned but who received no compensation because that person had a conviction for a traffic offence. Members may check the statistics if they so wish, but this is not simply about political prisoners: it affects people at all levels. Many people who have previous convictions have gone on to lead constructive lives. Should they be victims of criminal injury in future they will also be denied compensation. That is wrong. We should have a system that is different and that does not simply follow what has gone before. Go raibh maith agat.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Several useful points were made about the anomalies in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Indeed, various victims’ organisations made those same points in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s first report, ‘We Will Remember Them’. That was taken up when the compensation payments were reviewed. Some of those points concerned the use of language. The bereavement payment was always seen as offensive to victims and was misunderstood as a consequence. Therefore it was crucial that the word "support" was introduced. The extension of the bereavement support payment to those who are considered to be partners is extremely important.
There was unanimous support in the Committee for updating our legislation. There are anomalies in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, and the victims themselves are best able to point them out. One anomaly that is constantly highlighted is the treatment of those who suffer trauma and psychological injury as a result of witnessing a traumatic incident or who are present at the scene of a crime. They may not have been compensated but may endure a great deal of pain and mental illness as a consequence of what they have seen.
Over the years, survivors in Northern Ireland have made that point. Many have said that they should have been compensated for what they had observed and endured because it took an enormous toll on their ability to continue with work and on their ability to remain as they had been before.
Any new legislation is a concern, and, as other Members have said, there is no need to abolish something that only needed to be amended. The current legislation should be amended in a way that takes cognisance of the fact that those who are present at the scene of a crime should be eligible for compensation.
In a country such as Northern Ireland, where mental illness has been treated as so insignificant in the past, it is even more important that the terms "mental illness" and "psychological injury" are to be extended and moved beyond the simple descriptions of "disorders". Therefore psychological symptoms such as anxiety, tension, insomnia, irritability, loss of confidence, agoraphobia and preoccupation with thoughts of guilt and self- harm will be included under the terms of compensation.
Anyone who has spoken to a survivor of a terrible incident will have observed the guilt that that victim suffers because he or she has survived while others have died or been terribly injured. Therefore it is important that feelings of guilt that lead to mental illness, depression and loss of confidence are acknowledged as a cause of psychological injury and that such injury be included under the terms of compensation.
The third anomaly to be addressed — and which should have been addressed before now — is time limitations, particularly in child sex abuse cases. That is also a welcome change. The legislation should have been amended, and it is good that that point was picked up. Members must remember that the terms of reference are concerned not only with victims of the troubles, but also with victims in other areas. In many cases child sex abuse victims want to lock away the memory of what they endured, and it is only in their adolescence or as they approach the years beyond 18 that the memory of those events returns to them. Because of the time limitations in place, those victims were prohibited from claiming. Therefore it is good that that statutory limitation has been lifted.
However, it is possible to amend the legislation to take on board all of those changes. As other Members have said, the Assembly should not be abolishing access to legal aid, the appeals to the courts and compensation based on individual cases.
An example from current English case law will illustrate exactly what would happen here if the Assembly were to introduce the new scheme. Tariffs will be introduced under the schemes that are currently operating in England. The Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme 2002, which was presented to the Committee, lays out exactly how much a victim would receive for a finger injury, a broken arm, rape, sex assault, or any other injury.
Caroline Fairfax was raped at knifepoint by a serial rapist called Stefan Molliere. In the attack she was punched and badly beaten. Under the criminal injury compensation scheme of tariffs, she was awarded £7,500. She believed that that was an insult to all rape victims. She said that the attack almost ruined her life; it caused her to give up work; she had to move house; and, similar to many victims, she required counselling. The price put on a rape at knifepoint — by which she was also severely injured — was £7,500. There are many other similar cases in England where the tariff system is operating.
I urge Members not to let such a system be introduced to Northern Ireland. This afternoon I tried to compare what tariffs different injuries would equate to.
Under the proposed system the loss of a finger in an attack would cost the Northern Ireland Office up to £18,000. However, victims of severe sexual abuse lasting over three years — as there is a stipulation about how long the abuse may have lasted — with all the associated distress and mental illness would receive exactly the same amount. How can anyone decide that the loss of a single finger is the equivalent to sexual abuse that took place over three years? It is important to point out that each case should be decided on its individual merit. Therefore there is a reason for good legal advice.
Herein lies the criticism of the current system and why it needed to be changed. The current system is not transparent, and it is not sufficiently accountable. Therefore victims made an enormous number of complaints about that system. It could be made much more transparent and could be amended so that those victims understand what their rights may be.
Victims should also be entitled to appeal to the courts, so the loss of legal assistance is a concern. Undoubtedly, and other Members have mentioned this, there is the right to receive support from Victim Support Northern Ireland. However, that organisation made the point that one should look at what Kenneth Bloomfield referred to as less serious injuries and those that are more serious. Victim Support Northern Ireland is on record in Committee as saying that it would be in a position to look at the less serious injuries and assist people in that category. There is more legal complexity when one is addressing multiple injuries and more serious injuries.
Considering these serious points of view regarding compensation for criminal injury, the Committee was unanimous that this particular piece of legislation should not go forward. Members have addressed other issues that would lead to inequity. The withdrawal of benefits and the paying back of some benefits are two such issues. Currently, that is not that the case. However, if it were, it would be seen as a step backwards and not as an improvement.
These are the major points, and ultimately I would argue that discretion and flexibility should always be seen positively, not negatively. It is not too difficult to take cases individually. As we make the transformation from conflict into, we hope, a more peaceful society it would be nothing short of a disgrace if the Assembly were to support the current proposals.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I have had a relatively easy job today in that all of the Members who spoke were in support of the recommendations that the Committee has made. Therefore there are no questions that I need to answer, except perhaps the one that my Colleague from South Antrim, Mr Dalton, raised in his address to the Assembly. It is only fair to point out that the Committee’s recommendation that he spoke about only extends to cases where the actions of the victim in no way contribute to his or her injuries. It was the Committee’s view that if the perpetrator of a crime were injured then it is right that he or she should not be compensated for those injuries.
I thank everyone who took part in the debate for their contributions. I thank the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for their input during the weeks that we met. There has been a fair amount of unity in what we have said, what we have done and the work we have produced. I want to thank the Assembly Research and Library Services for its assistance, and I owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee Clerks who assisted us in our meetings over the past weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation, (1/01/R) established by resolution on 10 September 2001, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Adjourned at 5.20 pm.